P428 PRESCRIPTION APPROPRIATENESS AND EFFECTIVE CLINICAL IMPACT OF EXERCISE STRESS TEST IN ROUTINE DAILY PRACTICE. (18th May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Prati, D; Widmann, M; Castaldi, G; Zucchelli, F; Tavella, D; Ribichini, F
• Is Part Of: European heart journal supplements. Volume 24(2022)Supplement C
• Publication Date: 2022-05-18
• Subjects: Cardiology -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Europe -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/suac012.411
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1520-765X

Abstract

Abstract: Rationale: In the clinical setting, and particularly in the cardiovascular field, an exponential increase of non–invasive diagnostic tests has been observed. Between these, the exercise stress test represents a low–sensitivity and low–specificity diagnostic approach and its use has been less and less recommended in national and international guidelines. However, in the Italian clinical common practice it continues to be extensively prescribed both for chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) follow–up and for screening of coronary artery disease (CAD) in asymptomatic patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort single–center study was conducted and 968 consecutives patients undergoing ECG stress test at our Department between October 2018 and March 2019 were included. Appropriateness of prescription and impact on the following diagnostic and therapeutic pathway has been analyzed. Results: In this series, the main indication for exercise stress test was subclinical ischemia detection in CCS follow–up (312 pts, 32.3%). 181 tests (18.2%) were undertaken for CAD detection in patients symptomatic for chest pain and 171 (17.7%) for CAD detection in asymptomatic patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors. At last, 97 tests (10%) were prescribed for arrhythmic burden evaluation and exercise response in patients with documented hyperkinetic arrhythmias. 590 tests (61%) were considered significative for reaching heart rate significance threshold (85% of target heart rate); between these 53 (9%) were positives for symptoms or ECG modifications. Among the positive tests, 25 patients (2.6%) went to the catheterization laboratory for coronary angiography: the indications for the exercise stress testing were chest pain for 14 of these patients while 7 undertook the examination for CCS follow–up. No asymptomatic patient presented for CAD screening undertook coronary angiography. At the end of the diagnostic pathway, 9 patients (0.9% of the complete cohort) received percutaneous or surgical revascularization. Conclusions: Routinary and extensive use of exercise stress test can lead to dispersion of resources with many inappropriate examinations. Accurate clinical evaluation and appropriate prescription, especially regarding chest pain evaluation, are the foundations for a significative impact on clinical history of patients.