Published in:
01-02-2015 | Original Article
Prospective evaluation of a new protocol for the provisional use of perfusion imaging with exercise stress testing
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 2/2015
Login to get accessAbstract
Purpose
Previous literature suggests that myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) adds little to the prognosis of patients who exercise >10 metabolic equivalents (METs) during stress testing. With this in mind, we prospectively tested a provisional injection protocol in emergency department (ED) patients presenting for the evaluation of chest pain in which a patient would not receive an injection of radioisotope if adequate exercise was achieved without symptoms and a negative ECG response.
Methods
All patients who presented to the ED over a 5-year period who were referred for stress testing as part of their ED evaluation were included. Patients considered for a provisional protocol were: exercise stress, age <65 years, no known coronary artery disease, and an interpretable rest ECG. Criteria for not injecting included a maximal predicted heart rate ≥85 %, ≥10 METs of exercise, no anginal symptoms during stress, and no ECG changes. Groups were compared based on stress test results, all-cause and cardiac mortality, follow-up cardiac testing, subsequent revascularization, and cost.
Results
A total of 965 patients were eligible with 192 undergoing exercise-only and 773 having perfusion imaging. After 41.6 ± 19.6 months of follow-up, all-cause mortality was similar in the exercise-only versus the exercise plus imaging group (2.6 % vs. 2.1 %, p = 0.59). There were no cardiac deaths in the exercise-only group. At 1 year there was no difference in the number of repeat functional stress tests (1.6 % vs. 2.1 %, p = 0.43), fewer angiograms (0 % vs. 4.0 %, p = 0.002), and a significantly lower cost ($65 ± $332 vs $506 ± $1,991, p = 0.002; values are in US dollars) in the exercise-only group. The radiation exposure in the exercise plus imaging group was 8.4 ± 2.1 mSv.
Conclusions
A provisional injection protocol has a very low mortality, few follow-up diagnostic tests, and lower cost compared to standard imaging protocols. If adopted it would decrease radiation exposure, save time and decrease health-care costs without jeopardizing prognosis.