What are the clinical implications and prognostic significance of abnormal (positive) exercise electrocardiography but normal stress echocardiography?
In this cohort study including 15 077 patients undergoing exercise stress echocardiography for suspected coronary artery disease, positive exercise electrocardiography but normal stress echocardiography was associated with higher rates of short- and long-term adverse cardiac events compared with negative exercise electrocardiography and normal stress echocardiography.
Abnormal exercise electrocardiography but normal stress echocardiography may identify patients at a slightly increased cardiac risk that was not previously recognized.
Patients with abnormal (positive) exercise electrocardiography, but normal stress echocardiography (+ECG/−Echo) are commonly encountered in clinical practice; however, the prognostic significance of this discordant result is unclear.
To determine whether patients with +ECG/−Echo have a higher rate of adverse clinical events and a poorer prognosis than patients with negative exercise ECG and normal stress Echo imaging (−ECG/−Echo).
Design, Setting, and Participants
Between January 1, 2000, and February 28, 2014, a total of 47 944 consecutive patients without known coronary artery disease who underwent exercise stress Echo at Duke University Medical Center were evaluated for inclusion in this observational cohort study. Data analysis was conducted from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2016.
Patients were categorized as having −ECG/−Echo, +ECG/−Echo, or +Echo (−ECG/+Echo and +ECG/+Echo).
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcome was a composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, and coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes included individual adverse events and downstream testing.
After excluding submaximal tests and nondiagnostic ECG or stress imaging results, 15 077 patients (mean [SD] age, 52  years; 6228 [41.3%] men) were classified by stress test results. Of these, 12 893 patients (85.5%) had −ECG/−Echo, 1286 patients (8.5%) had +ECG/−Echo, and 898 patients (6.0%) had +Echo. Through a median follow-up of 7.3 (interquartile range, 4.4-10.0) years, the composite end point occurred in 794 patients with −ECG/−Echo (8.5%), 142 patients with +ECG/−Echo (14.6%), and 297 patients with +Echo (37.4%). Death occurred in 425 patients with −ECG/−Echo (4.8%), 50 patients with +ECG/−Echo (5.9%), and 70 patients with +Echo (11.2%). Myocardial infarction occurred in 195 patients with −ECG/−Echo (2.2%), 31 patients with +ECG/−Echo (3.6%), and 59 patients with +Echo (8.7%). The addition of stress ECG findings to clinical and exercise data yielded incremental prognostic value. Patients with −ECG/−Echo imaging results had the least downstream testing (2.3%), followed by +ECG/−Echo (12.8%), and +Echo (33.6%) (P < .001).
Conclusions and Relevance
The presence of +ECG results with normal stress Echo imaging may identify a population of patients who are at slightly increased risk for adverse cardiac events, which was not previously recognized. Further study is needed to determine whether these patients will benefit from intensification of medical management.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Daubert MA, Sivak J, Dunning A, et al. Implications of Abnormal Exercise Electrocardiography With Normal Stress Echocardiography. JAMA Intern Med. Published online January 27, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6958
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: