Advertisement

Cardiovascular Stress Testing

  • Mohan Rao
  • Nicholas A. Paivanas
  • James Eichelberger
Chapter

Abstract

Establishing the anatomic presence of coronary stenosis has become increasingly important owing to the roles coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) have in the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, angina or myocardial infarction (MI) may occur in the absence of angiographically proven obstructive coronary lesions and, conversely, coronary obstructions may be asymptomatic and thus have uncertain prognostic significance [1–4]. Some have suggested that a functional evaluation may be more predictive of future cardiac events than anatomy alone [5, 6].

Keywords

Single Photon Emission Compute Tomographic Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Perfusion Imaging Coronary Stenosis Stress Echocardiography 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Dagenais G et al. Survival of patients with a strongly positive exercise electrocardiogram. Circulation. 1982;65:452–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McNeer J et al. The role of the exercise test in the evaluation of patients for ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 1978;57:64–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Podrid P, Graboys T, Lown B. Prognosis of medically treated patients with coronary artery disease with profound ST-segment depression during exercise testing. N Engl J Med. 1981;305:1111–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fisher L et al. Diagnostic quantification of CASS (Coronary Artery Surgery Study) clinical and exercise test results in determining presence and extent of coronary artery disease. A multivariate approach. Circulation. 1981;63:987–1000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaul S et al. Superiority of quantitative exercise thallium-201 variables in determining long-term prognosis in ambulatory patients with chest pain: a comparison with cardiac catheterization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;12:25–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wackers F et al. Prognostic significance of normal quantitative planar thallium-201 stress scintigraphy in patients with chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1985;6:27–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diamond G et al. A model for assessing the sensitivity and specificity of tests subject to selection bias: application to exercise radionuclide ventriculography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease. J Chronic Dis. 1986;29:343–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pryor D et al. Estimating the likelihood of severe coronary artery disease. Am J Med. 1991;90:553–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pryor D et al. Value of the history and physical in identifying patients at increased risk for coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:81–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Passamani E et al. A randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Survival of patients with a low ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:1665–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fletcher GF et al. Exercise standards for testing and training: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2001;104(14):1694–740.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pashkow F. Diagnostic evaluation of the patient with coronary artery disease. Cleve Clin J Med. 1994;61:43–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patterson R, Horowitz S, Eisner R. Comparison of modalities to diagnose coronary artery disease. Semin Nucl Med. 1994;24:286–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Diamond G, Forrester J. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1979;300:1350–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Diamond G et al. Computer assisted diagnosis in the noninvasive evaluation of patients with suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1983;1:444–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pryor D et al. Estimating the likelihood of significant coronary artery disease. Am J Med. 1983;75:771–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldman L et al. Incremental value of the exercise test for diagnosing the presence or absence of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1982;66:945–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wachtell K et al. Albuminuria and cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy: the LIFE study. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(11):901–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gerstein H et al. Albuminuria and risk of cardiovascular events, death, and heart failure in diabetic and nondiabetic individuals. JAMA. 2001;286(4):421–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diamond G. A clinically relevant classification of chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1983;1:574–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Diamond G. Bayes’ theorem: a practical aid to clinical judgment for diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Pract Cardiol. 1984;10:47–77.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vliestra R et al. Risk factors and angiographic coronary artery disease: a report from the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS). Circulation. 1980;62:254–61.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    San Román JA et al. Selection of the optimal stress test for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Heart. 1998;80:370–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goldschlager N. Use of the treadmill test in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in patients with chest pain. Ann Intern Med. 1982;97:383–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Cardiovascular Procedures: Guidelines for exercise testing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986;8:725–38.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Friesinger G et al. Exercise electrocardiography and vasoregulatory abnormalities. Am J Cardiol. 1972;30:733–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Myers J et al. Exercise capacity and mortality among men referred for exercise testing. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:793–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Libby P et al. Braunwald’s heart disease: a textbook of cardiovascular medicine. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2008.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vivekananthan D et al. Heart rate recovery after exercise is a predictor of mortality, independent of the angiographic severity of coronary disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:831–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weiss SA et al. Exercise blood pressure and future cardiovascular death in asymptomatic individuals. Circulation. 2010;121(19):2109–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mark DB et al. Prognostic value of a treadmill exercise score in outpatients with suspected coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(12):849–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Marwick T. Current status of stress echocardiography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Cleve Clin J Med. 1995;62:227–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Iliceto S et al. Clinical use of stress echocardiography: factors affecting diagnostic accuracy. Eur Heart J. 1994;15:672–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Berman D et al. Clinical applications of exercise nuclear cardiology studies in the era of healthcare reform. Am J Cardiol. 1995;75:3D–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nallamothu N et al. Comparison of thallium-201 single-photon emission computed tomography and electrocardiographic response during exercise in patients with normal rest electrocardiographic results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25:830–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pollock S et al. Independent and incremental prognostic value of tests performed in hierarchical order to evaluate patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Validation of models based on these tests. Circulation. 1992;85:237–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Beller G. Myocardial perfusion imaging with thallium-201. J Nucl Med. 1994;35:674–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mahmarian J, Verani M. Exercise thallium-201 perfusion scintigraphy in the assessment of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1991;67:2D–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brown K. Prognostic value of thallium-201 myocardial perfusion imaging. A diagnostic tool comes of age. Circulation. 1991;83:363–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hachamovitch R et al. Exercise myocardial perfusion SPECT in patients without known coronary artery disease: incremental prognostic value and use in risk stratification. Circulation. 1996;93:905–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nallamouthu N et al. Prognostic value of simultaneous perfusion and function assessment using technetium-99m sestamibi. Am J Cardiol. 1996;78:562–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hachamovitch R et al. Effective risk stratification using exercise myocardial perfusion SPECT in women: gender-related differences in prognostic nuclear testing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28:34–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Detrano R et al. Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test: the exercise thallium scintigram. Am J Med. 1988;84:699–710.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Allison T et al. Subspecialty clinics: cardiology-cardiovascular stress testing: a description of the various types of stress tests and indications for their use. Mayo Clin Proc. 1996;71:43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Beller G. Pharmacologic stress imaging. JAMA. 1991;265:633–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gunalp B et al. Value of dobutamine technetium-99m-sestamibi SPECT and echocardiography in the detection of coronary artery disease compared with coronary angiography. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:889–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Leppo J. Dipyridamole myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Med. 1994;35:730–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Poornima I et al. Utility of myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with low risk-treadmill scores. JACC. 2004;43:194–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Geleijnse ML, Elhendy A. Can stress echocardiography compete with perfusion scintigraphy in the detection of coronary artery disease and cardiac risk assessment? Eur J Echocardiogr. 2000;1:12–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sckinkel A et al. Noninvasive evaluation of ischemic heart disease: myocardial perfusion imaging or stress echocardiography? Eur Heart J. 2003;24:789–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Patel D, Baman T, Beller G. Comparison of the predictive value of exercise induced ST depression versus exercise technetium-99m sestamibi single photon emission computed tomographic imaging fro detected of coronary disease in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. Am J Cardiol. 2004;93(3):333–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Detry J et al. Diagnostic value of history and maximal exercise electrocardiography in men and women suspected of coronary heart disease. Circulation. 1977;55:756–61.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Guiteras P et al. Diagnostic accuracy of exercise ECG lead systems in clinical subsets of women. Circulation. 1982;65:1465–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Caner B et al. Dobutamine thallium-201 myocardial SPECT in patients with LBBB and normal coronary arteries. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:424–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gibbons R, et al. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Exercise Testing). American Collegeof Cardiology Web site. Available at: www.acc.org/clinical/guidelines/exercise/dirIndex.htm Accessed on 1/16/2011 (2002).
  56. 56.
    Iskandrian A, Hakki A, Kane S. Resting thallium-201 myocardial perfusion patterns in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction: differences between patients with primary cardiomyopathy, chronic coronary artery disease or acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 1986;111:760–7.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Demer L et al. Assessment of coronary artery disease severity by positron emission tomography: comparison with quantitative coronary arteriography in 193 patients. Circulation. 1989;79:825–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mahamadu F et al. Does electron beam computer tomography provide added value in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease? Curr Opin Cardiol. 2003;18:385–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sharples E et al. Coronary artery calcification measure with electron-beam computerized tomography correlates poorly with coronary artery angiography in dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;43:313–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nagel E et al. Magnetic resonance perfusion measurements for the noninvasive detection of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2003;108:432–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Cheitlin, M, J. Alpert et al. ASS/AHA guidelines for the clinical application of echocardiography: executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Clinical Application of Echocardiography). Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1997;29:862–879.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Cheitlin, M. D, W. F. Armstrong et al. ACC/AHA/ASE 2003 guideline update for the clinical application of echocardiography: summary articlea report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASE committee to update the 1997 guidelines for the clinical application of echocardiography).” Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2003;42(5):954–970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Klocke FL. ACC/AHA/ASNC Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging--Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASNC Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging). Circulation. 2003;108(11):1404–1418.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Douglas PS, B. Khandheria et al. ACCF/ASE/ACEP/AHA/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2008 Appropriateness Criteria for Stress Echocardiography: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: Endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine.” Circulation. 2008;117(11):1478–1497.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hendel RC, DS. Berman et al. ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine: Endorsed by the American College of Emergency Physicians.” Circulation. 2009;119(22): e561–e587.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Douglas PS, G. M., Haines DE, Lai WW, Manning WJ, and P. M. Patel AR, Polk DM, Ragosta M, Ward RP, Weiner RB. (2010). “ACCF/ASE/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR 2011 appropriate use criteria for echocardiography.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Chou, Tony; Amidon, Thomas. Evaluating Coronary Artery Disease Noninvasively – Which Test for Whom? West J Med. 1994;161:173–180.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohan Rao
    • 1
  • Nicholas A. Paivanas
    • 2
  • James Eichelberger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Division of CardiologyUniversity of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Internal MedicineUniversity of Rochester Medical CenterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations