Henkin Nativ, Karilker Ifat, Kobal Sergio L, Golan Rachel, Shalev Aryeh, Atar Shaul, Henkin Yaakov
Department of Family Medicine, Clalit Health Services, Sharon-Shomron District, Kfar-Saba 4428164, Israel.
Clalit Health Services, Southern District, Dimona 8604113, Israel.
J Clin Med. 2023 Jul 22;12(14):4832. doi: 10.3390/jcm12144832.
Echocardiographic stress tests are often used to evaluate patients who complain of chest pain. However, some patients fail to reach the target heart rate required for the test to be conclusive (usually defined as 85% of the predicted maximal heart rate based on the patient's age) and are often sent for additional imaging tests, such as myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) or cardiac computed tomography angiography (CTA). Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these additional tests in patients who present with chest pain but did not meet the heart rate requirements for a stress test. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of additional imaging tests for patients who experience chest pain during daily activities but are unable to reach the target heart rate currently required for an echocardiographic stress test. The study group included 415 consecutive patients who underwent a stress echocardiogram, did not achieve their target heart rate, and did not demonstrate abnormal changes during the test. The control group consisted of 415 consecutive patients who did reach their target heart rate and demonstrated no signs of ischemia. Demographic and clinical data, medication use, imaging test results (MPI, CTA, and/or coronary catheterization) and documented cardiac events that occurred during 1 year of follow-up were obtained from the electronic medical records. Of the 415 patients in the study group, 73 (17.6%) were referred to another imaging test within 12 months. Of these 73 patients, 59 underwent MPI and 14 underwent cardiac CTA. In 12 of these patients (16.4%) the test was considered to be abnormal, but only 7 patients (1.7%) subsequently underwent a percutaneous intervention (PCI). In the control group, 28 (6.7%) patients were referred for another imaging test. Of these 28 patients, 14 underwent MPI and 14 underwent cardiac CTA. None of these tests were found to be abnormal, but two patients (0.5%) underwent a PCI ( = 0.2 between groups). There were no deaths during the study period and no patients underwent bypass surgery. The majority of the patients who underwent PCI had additional clinical risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, and/or known coronary artery disease), had taken a beta blocker within 24 h prior to the test, and/or did not reach a heart rate above 78% of their target heart rate. Our study suggests that in most patients with chest pain who do not show ischemic changes on a stress echocardiogram, additional imaging studies can be safely deferred, even if the required target heart rate was not reached. However, in patients with diabetes and/or known coronary disease, those who took a beta blocker 24 h prior to the test, or those who did not achieve a heart rate above 78% of the current target heart rate, additional imaging studies should be considered.
超声心动图负荷试验常用于评估主诉胸痛的患者。然而,一些患者未能达到使检查具有结论性所需的目标心率(通常定义为根据患者年龄预测的最大心率的85%),常被送去进行额外的影像学检查,如心肌灌注成像(MPI)或心脏计算机断层血管造影(CTA)。很少有研究评估这些额外检查对出现胸痛但未达到负荷试验心率要求的患者的有效性。该研究的主要目的是评估额外影像学检查对在日常活动中经历胸痛但无法达到目前超声心动图负荷试验所需目标心率的患者的疗效。研究组包括415例连续接受负荷超声心动图检查、未达到目标心率且检查期间未显示异常变化的患者。对照组由415例连续达到目标心率且未显示缺血迹象的患者组成。从电子病历中获取人口统计学和临床数据、用药情况、影像学检查结果(MPI、CTA和/或冠状动脉造影)以及随访1年期间记录的心脏事件。在研究组的415例患者中,73例(17.6%)在12个月内被转诊进行另一项影像学检查。在这73例患者中,59例接受了MPI检查,14例接受了心脏CTA检查。在这些患者中有12例(16.4%)检查被认为异常,但只有7例(1.7%)随后接受了经皮介入治疗(PCI)。在对照组中,28例(6.7%)患者被转诊进行另一项影像学检查。在这28例患者中,14例接受了MPI检查,14例接受了心脏CTA检查。这些检查均未发现异常,但有2例患者(0.5%)接受了PCI治疗(组间差异P = 0.2)。研究期间无死亡病例,也无患者接受搭桥手术。接受PCI治疗的大多数患者有其他临床危险因素(糖尿病、高血压和/或已知冠状动脉疾病),在检查前24小时内服用了β受体阻滞剂,和/或未达到高于其目标心率78%的心率。我们的研究表明,在大多数负荷超声心动图未显示缺血变化的胸痛患者中,即使未达到所需的目标心率,也可安全推迟额外的影像学检查。然而,对于患有糖尿病和/或已知冠状动脉疾病的患者、在检查前24小时服用β受体阻滞剂的患者或未达到高于当前目标心率78%心率的患者,应考虑进行额外的影像学检查。