Relative diagnostic, prognostic and economic value of stress echocardiography versus exercise electrocardiography as initial investigation for the detection of coronary artery disease in patients with new onset suspected angina

摘要

Objectives We hypothesised that stress echocardiography (SE), may be superior to exercise ECG (ExECG), for predicting CAD and outcome, and cost-beneficial, when performed as initial investigation in newly suspected angina. Methods All patients seen in 2011, with suspected angina, no history of CAD, pre-test likelihood of CAD of >10% and who underwent SE or ExECG as first line were identified retrospectively. Cost to diagnosis was calculated by adding the cost of all tests, up to and including coronary angiography (CA), on an intention-to-treat basis. Follow-up data on cardiac death and myocardial infarction (MI) were collected, 26months after the presentation of the last study patient. Results A total of 456 patients underwent ExECG (224 (49%) negative, 93 (20%) positive, 139 (31%) inconclusive) and 241 underwent SE (200 (83%) negative, 35 (15%) positive, 6 (2%) inconclusive) as first line. In patients subsequently undergoing CA, CAD was present in 46% (37/80) of patients with positive ExECG vs. 72% (23/32) patients with positive SE (p=0.01). Mean cost to diagnosis was ￡456 for the ExECG vs. ￡360 for the SE group (p=0.002). Over a mean follow-up period of 31±5months, cardiac events were 2% each in negative SE vs. negative ExECG (p=0.9). Conclusions SE is superior to ExECG for prediction of CAD and is cost-beneficial when used as initial test in patients with no history of CAD presenting with suspected angina.