Comparison of stress digital ventriculography, stress thallium scintigraphy, and digital fluoroscopy in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in subjects without prior myocardial infarction.

Exercise thallium scintigraphy is often used for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD). Exercise digital subtraction ventriculography and digital subtraction fluoroscopy are new diagnostic procedures with roles that have not been determined. To compare the relative accuracies of the digital techniques with thallium scintigraphy, 97 consecutive patients without myocardial infarction underwent all 3 tests on the day before their scheduled coronary angiograms. Forty-two patients had CAD (more than 50% diameter narrowing of 1 major artery). A fixed or reversible perfusion defect defined an abnormal thallium test response and a segmental wall motion abnormality at rest or with exercise defined an abnormal digital ventriculographic response. Any visualized coronary calcific deposit defined an abnormal digital fluorographic response. The sensitivities of digital fluoroscopy (86%) and digital ventriculography (79%) were significantly higher than the sensitivity of thallium (62%) (p less than 0.05). The specificity of thallium (82%) was not significantly higher than that of either digital ventriculography (72%) or fluoroscopy (67%). The diagnostic accuracies of digital fluoroscopy, digital ventriculography, and thallium were 75%, 75% and 73%, respectively. A logistic regression model showed that thallium and digital fluoroscopy were more accurate in younger patients, whereas digital ventriculography was more sensitive in hypertensive persons and in those not taking beta-blocking drugs. The choice of test depends on disease prevalence, clinical variables (such as age and hypertension) and the importance of functional information obtained from stress testing.