Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:12:40.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Clinical Use of Nuclear Exercise Tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Richard M. Steingart ,
Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller ,
Nancy Budner ,
Jonathan Tobin ,
Joseph Wachspress ,
Lloyd Lense ,
John P. Wexler  and
Susan Slagle
Richard M. Steingart
Affiliation:
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller
Affiliation:
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Nancy Budner
Affiliation:
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Jonathan Tobin
Affiliation:
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Joseph Wachspress
Affiliation:
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Lloyd Lense
Affiliation:
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
John P. Wexler
Affiliation:
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Susan Slagle
Affiliation:
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the mid-1970s, after decades of clinical use, the utility of electrocardiographic exercise testing for the evaluation of patients with suspected ischemic heart disease was critically examined and questioned. Concurrent with this critique, two sophisticated, more expensive and powerful “nuclear” exercise tests were introduced sequentially for clinical use: myocardial perfusion imaging with thallium-201 and radionuclide ventriculography with technetium 99m. The published indications for the two tests are similar, and both have been shown to offer advantages over ECG stress testing in selected populations. However, few data are available regarding the comparative utility of thallium versus ventriculographic imaging. As part of a prospective study to assess the efficacy of cardiovascular nuclear medicine studies, we undertook the present analysis to assess the clinical evolution of these tests and to elucidate factors responsible for clinicians' choice for the often competing examinations. The study examined 213 consecutive patient referrals for thallium scintigraphy and 183 referrals for ventriculography, ranging from patients with no symptoms or highly non-specific chest pain syndromes (21% of referrals) to patients with proven coronary disease (28% of the referrals). Twenty-one percent of patients were referred to confirm the clinical impression that the patient did not have coronary disease, 40% to confirm its presence, and 37% to determine its severity.

Analyses were undertaken to determine the factors that dictated a preference for thallium scintigraphy rather than ventriculography; only the physician's intent in testing and level of training were significant predictors for a particular nuclear test.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , October 1988 , pp. 613 - 622
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Bodenheimer, M. M, Banka, V. S., Fooshee, C. M., & Helfant, R. H.Comparative sensitivity of the exercise electrocardiogram, thallium imaging and stress radionuclide angiography to detect the presence and severity of coronary heat disease. Circulation, 1979, 650, 1270–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Borer, J. S., Bacharach, S. L., Green, M. V., Kent, M., Epstein, S. E., & Johnston, G. S.Real-time radionuclide cineventriculography in the noninvasive evaluation of global and regional left ventricular function at rest and during exercise in patients with coronary artery disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977, 296, 839–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Brown, K. A., Boucher, C. A., Okada, R. D., Guiney, T. E., Newell, J. B., Strauss, H. W., & Pohost, G. M.Prognostic value of exercise thallium-201 imaging in patients presenting for evaluation of chest pain. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 1983, 1, 994–1001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Caldwell, J. H., Hamilton, G. W., Sorenson, S. G., Ritchie, J. L., Williams, D. L., & Kennedy, J. W.The detection of coronary artery disease with radionuclide techniques: A comparison of rest-exercise thallium imaging and ejection fraction response. Circulation, 1980, 61, 610–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Diamond, G. A., & Forrester, J. S.Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 1979, 300, 1350–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Diamond, G. A., Pollock, B. H., & Work, J. W.Clinical decisions and computers. Journal of theAmerican College of Cardiology, 1987, 9, 1385–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Giagnoni, E., Secchi, M. B., Wu, S. C., Morabito, A., Oltrona, L., Mancarella, S., Volpa, N., Fossa, L., Bettazzi, L., Arangio, G., Sachero, A., & Folli, G.Prognostic value of exercise EKG testing in asymptomatic normotensive subjects. New England Journal of Medicine, 1983, 309, 1085–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Gitler, B., Fishbach, M., & Steingart, R. M.Use of electrocardiographic-thallium exercise tests in clinical practice. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 1984, 3, 262–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Hamilton, G. W., Trobaugh, G. W., Ritchie, K., Gould, L., DeRouen, T. A., & Williams, D. L.Myocardial imaging with 201-thallium: An analysis of clinical usefulness based on Bayes' theorem. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 1978, 8, 358–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hlatky, M., Botvinick, E., & Brundage, B.Diagnostic accuracy of cardiologists compared with probability calculations using Bayes' rule. American Journal of Cardiology, 1982, 49, 1927–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Hossack, K. F., Bruce, R. A., Fisher, L., & Hofer, V.Five to ten year follow-up of men with atypical chest pain. Prognostic value of risk factors and exercise testing. International Journal of Cardiology, 1983, 3, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Jengo, J. A., Freeman, R., Brizendine, M., & Mena, I.Detection of coronary artery disease: Comparison of exercise stress radionuclide and thallium stress perfusion imaging. An analysis of factors affectingf the diagnostic accuracy of each technique. Journal of the American Journal of Cardiology, 1980, 3, 272–83.Google Scholar
13. Mandell, H. N.Technological imperative. Postgraduate Medicine, 1983, 74 (08), 24–26.Google ScholarPubMed
14. Osbakken, M. D., Okada, R. D., Boucher, C. A., Strauss, H. W., & Pohost, G. M.Comparison of exercise perfusion and ventricular function imaging: An analysis of factors affecting the diagnostic accuracy of each technique. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 1984, 3, 272–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Patterson, R. E., Eng, C., & Horowitz, S. F.Practical diagnosis of coronary artery disease: A Bayes' theorem nomogram to correlate clinical data with noninvasive exercise tests. American Journal of Cardiology, 1983, 53, 252–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Pryor, D. B., Harrell, F. E. Jr, Lee, K. L., Rosati, R. A., Coleman, R. E., Cobb, F. R., Califf, R. M., & Jones, R. H.Prognostic indicators from radionuclide angiography in medically treated patients with coronary artery disease. American Journal of Cardiology, 1984, 53, 18–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Reuben, D. B.Learning diagnostic restraint. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 310, 591–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Ritchie, J. L., Zaret, B. L., Strauss, H. W., Pitt, B., Berman, D. S., Schelbert, H. R., Ashburn, W. L., Berger, H. J., & Hamilton, G. W.Myocardial imaging with thallium-201: A multicenter study in patients with angina pectoris or acute myocardial infarction. American Journal of Cardiology, 1978, 42, 345–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Rozanski, A., Diamond, G. A., Berman, D., Forrester, J. S., Morris, D., & Swan, H. C.The declining specificity of exercise radionuclide ventriculography. New England Journal of Medicine, 1983, 309, 518–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. SAS Institute Inc. SAS users guide: Basics. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1982.Google Scholar
21. Steingart, R. M., & Homma, S.Some unanswered problems with probability analysis: Possible impact on exercise thallium test use. American Journal of Cardiology, 1985, 55, 240–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Steingart, R. M., Wassertheil-Smoller, S., Wexler, J. P., Budner, N., Tobin, J., Wachspress, J., & Lense, L.Underutilization of clinical data leads to overutilization of technology (Abstract). Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 1986, 7 (Suppl. A), 214.Google Scholar
23. Steingart, R. M., Wexler, J., Slagle, S., & Scheuer, J.Radionuclide ventriculographic responses to graded supine and upright exercise: Critical role of the Frank-Starling mechanism at submaximal exercise. American Journal of Cardiology, 1984, 53, 1671–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Wassertheil-Smoller, S., Steingart, R. M., Wexler, J. P., Tobin, J., Budner, N., Wachspress, J., Lense, L., & Slagle, S.Nuclear scans: A clinical decision making tool that reduces the need for cardiac catheterization. Journal of Chronic Disease, 1987, 40, 385–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Zar, J. H.Biostatistical analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974, 60.Google Scholar