132 Diagnostic Accuracy of Stress Echocardiography Compared with Invasive Coronary Angiography with Fractional Flow Reserve for The Diagnosis of Haemodynamically Significant Cad in Patients with Known or Suspected CAD

Abstract

unknown. We hypothesised that information of ischemia and atherosclerosis which can be achieved simultaneously by ultrasound (SE and carotid ultrasound) can provide incremental prognostic information in these patients. Methods Consecutive patients with no previous history of CAD investigated with SE for suspected angina underwent a simultaneous carotid ultrasound. Carotid plaque burden was assessed. Patients were followed up for combined major adverse cardiac events (MACE) of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction and unplanned coronary revascularization. Results Of the 591 patients, (269 male (46%), mean age 59 ± 11 years), 67 (11%) demonstrated myocardial ischemia by SE. Prevalence of carotid plaque disease was higher (59%) but similar in normal and abnormal SE patients (58% vs. 66%, p = 0.22). At a mean of 37 months, 580 (98%) could be followed up during which 40 MACE occurred. In the multivariable model pre-test probability of CAD (p = 0.001), abnormal SE (p < 0.0001) and plaque burden (p < 0.0001) predicted MACE after adjusting for age, gender, cardiac risk factors and baseline drug therapy. MACE rate/year increased from 0.9% vs. 1.95% vs. 4.23% vs. 9.58% (p < 0.0001) in patients with no plaque and normal SE vs. presence of plaque and normal SE vs. no plaque and abnormal SE vs. plaque and abnormal SE, respectively. Figure demonstrates the prognostic value of simultaneous carotid plaque assessment and SE. When prognosis was assessed in a hierarchical manner as done clinically (pre-test probability of CAD followed by SE and carotid ultrasound), it showed significant increment in global chi square from 22.1 to 48.9 to 78.5 (p < 0.0001). Conclusion In patients with suspected stable angina but without known CAD simultaneous SE (for ischemia) and carotid ultrasound (for atherosclerosis) provided synergistic prognostic value. This study supports simultaneous carotid ultrasound in such patients investigated by SE and has implications in primary prevention treatment.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in emergency patients with multivessel disease or unobstructed coronary arteries: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK

“…Estimates from different patient groups were sometimes used to populate the model. For example, in model 1, the diagnostic accuracy of stress ECHO was derived from a study diagnosing significant coronary artery disease, rather than PPCI patients 31. Despite these potential limitations, our model represents the best available evidence.…”

“…The assumption of 100% sensitivity and specificity for CMR and FFR results in identical probabilities and outcomes, but differences in costs for the two arms. Sensitivity and specificity values for stress ECHO were obtained from Gurunathan et al 31…”

A national registry to assess the value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging after primary percutaneous coronary intervention pathway activation: a feasibility cohort study

“…For example, in the model for patients with multivessel disease, the diagnostic accuracy of stress ECHO (its sensitivity and specificity) was taken from a paper considering the diagnosis of significant coronary artery disease, rather than a PPCI population, and estimates are based on the number of vessels rather than the number of patients. 39 In the base-case analyses for multivessel disease, CMR and pressure wire were treated as reference standards, and both were assumed to have 100% sensitivity and specificity. There are suggestions in the literature that this is reasonable; for example, Emrich et al 103 found that CMR correctly identified all 20 out of 125 patients with MI in their study.…”

The Value of Speckle Tracking Strain Imaging at Recovery Period of Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography

“…The accuracy of stress echo tests for the detection of coronary artery disease is expressed as the sensitivity and specificity of the technique for the detection of angiographically demonstrated stenosis. Nonetheless, this parameter has a number of limitations, some reflecting the limitations of an angiographic cutoff for significant disease, including the variation of the physiologic effect of a stenosis based on site, length, and vessel size, as well as over-and under-estimation of coronary lesion severity [4].…”