In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.
Did you know that your browser is out of date? To get the best experience using our website we recommend that you upgrade to a newer version. Learn more.

Angina pectoris: value of stress echocardiography (diagnosis, follow-up)

Chest pain is the main alert sign for coronary artery disease (CAD). Most people with angina have significant CAD; therefore, stratifying the risk is important. Stress echocardiography (SE) is a widely used modality for the diagnosis, prognosis and follow-up of patients with CAD. Rest and stress images are compared for left ventricular cavity size and shape, and global and regional wall motion score index using a standard 17-segment left ventricular model. During the last decade, tissue Doppler imaging, strain imaging, contrast echocardiography and 3D imaging have been used increasingly for accurate evaluation of cardiac function, providing new ischaemic indicators.

Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
Acute Cardiac Care

Keywords

angina pectoris, coronary artery disease, diagnosis, prognosis, stress echocardiography

Introduction

Chest pain is the main alert sign for coronary artery disease (CAD). The important thing is to define it as angina and then study its possible mechanism, but first CAD must be ruled out because it has a high mortality risk. From a clinical perspective, angina is an important symptom that is difficult to interpret, and a complex variable from a statistical point of view. Eighty-one percent of men and 52% of women with angina have significant CAD [1]. Three-vessel lesions (28%) are the most frequent significant CAD in males and one-vessel lesions (17%) in females [1]; therefore, stratifying the risk in these patients is very important. Cardiac stress imaging is a well-established method for the evaluation of CAD and predicting outcomes [2,3].

Indications for stress echocardiography in patients with angina or the ischaemic equivalent

Once the physician determines that symptoms are present that may represent CAD, the pre-test probability of CAD should be assessed [4]. There are a number of risk algorithms [5] available that can be used to calculate this probability: very low pre-test probability (<5% pre-test probability of CAD), low pre-test probability (between 5% and 10% pre-test probability of CAD), intermediate pre-test probability (between 10% and 90% pre-test probability of CAD), and high pre-test-probability (>90% pre-test probability of CAD) (Figure 1) [4].

 

Figure 1. Pre-test probability of CAD by age, gender and symptoms.

 90_RomeroFarina_FINAL FOR PUBLICATION_Figure 1.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High: >90% pre-test probability. Intermediate: between 10% and 90% pre-test probability. Low: between 5% and 10% pre-test probability. Very low: <5% pre-test probability.

From Douglas et al [4]. Appropriate use criteria for echocardiography. With permission from Elsevier.

 

Moreover, we have to determine the appropriate use of the test. There are three categories of indication: appropriate use, uncertain use, and inappropriate use [6].

Appropriate test for specific indication: test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach for the indication.

Uncertain for specific indication: test may be generally acceptable and may be a reasonable approach for the indication. Uncertainty also implies that more research and/or patient information is needed to classify the indication definitively.

Inappropriate test for that indication: test is not generally acceptable and is not a reasonable approach for the indication [6].

Appropriate uses are:

A) Low pre-test probability of CAD and ECG uninterpretable or unable to exercise.

B) Intermediate pre-test probability of CAD and ECG interpretable and able to exercise.

C) Intermediate pre-test probability of CAD and ECG uninterpretable or unable to exercise.

D) High pre-test probability of CAD and regardless of ECG interpretability and ability to exercise [4].

On the other hand, an imaging stress test is recommended as the initial test for diagnosing CAD if the left ventricular ejection fraction is <50% in patients without typical angina, and in symptomatic patients with prior revascularisation, and should also be considered to assess the functional severity of intermediate lesions on coronary arteriography [7].

Inappropriate use is:

Low pre-test probability of CAD and ECG interpretable and able to exercise [4].

Major absolute contraindications for a stress test are decompensated congestive heart failure, uncontrolled hypertension (blood pressure >200/110 mmHg), uncontrolled cardiac arrhythmias, acute pulmonary embolism, acute myocarditis or pericarditis, acute aortic dissection, acute myocardial infarction (<4 days) [8].

Imaging technique

Clear endocardial definition is crucial for optimal interpretation and it is recommended that harmonic imaging, when available, be routinely used for optimal endocardial border detection (in parasternal long- and short-axis, apical long-axis, and apical four- and two-chamber views). Contrast-enhanced endocardial border detection could be used when suboptimal imaging is present [9]. Imaging during exercise has been associated with improved sensitivity compared to post-treadmill exercise imaging; continuous imaging during stress permits more precise determination of the heart rate at which ischaemic wall motion abnormalities begin [9].

Rest and stress images are compared for left ventricular cavity size and shape, and global and regional contractility [10]. A normal response to stress occurs when all left ventricular segments become equally hypercontractile. Each segment can be scored at rest and with stress as follows: normal=1, hypokinetic=2, akinetic=3, dyskinetic=4, aneurysmal=5 [10]. The wall motion score index can be calculated at rest and with stress using a standard 17-segment left ventricular model by summing the total scores of each individual segment and dividing by the number of segments assessed. Single-vessel disease may manifest only as stress-induced wall motion dysfunction in one vascular territory, while multivessel disease may cause multi-segmental or even global wall motion impairment accompanied by a left ventricular ejection fraction decrease and/or end-systolic volume increase with stress. The wall motion score index at peak stress has been shown to be independently associated with cardiac events and mortality.

During the last decade, tissue Doppler imaging, strain imaging, and 3D imaging have been increasingly used for accurate evaluation of cardiac function, providing new ischaemic indicators. For these new techniques, the images are acquired at maximum or immediate post-stress, and then analysed in the workstation. The methodology of image acquisition depends on the type of echocardiographic equipment.

Specificity and sensitivity

In general, the sensitivity of exercise and the sensitivity of dobutamine SE for CAD detection has been estimated to be 88% and 85%, respectively, with a specificity of 82% and 83%, respectively [9]. Imaging during exercise has been associated with improved sensitivity compared to post-treadmill exercise imaging [10].

Recent studies have shown that more women die of heart disease every year than men. Early symptom recognition, risk assessment, and diagnosis of CAD are paramount in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in women [11]. In women at intermediate pre-test probability of disease, a non-invasive imaging-based test for ischaemia is preferred, whenever local expertise and availability permit [12]. Its versatility, accuracy, safety, non-invasiveness, and lack of radiation exposure make SE an attractive technique to apply to the assessment of women with known or suspected CAD [13]. In women, the sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value and negative-predictive value for SE are 79% (95% CI: 74%-83%), 83% (95% CI: 74%-89%), 78% and 83%, respectively, in women without a history of CAD [14]. The mean sensitivity and specificity of dobutamine SE to detect CAD are 72% and 88%, respectively [14]. The positive-predictive value for SE is lower in women than men, although the sensitivities and specificities are comparable [13]. The lower positive-predictive value is consistent with the lower prevalence of obstructive epicardial CAD in women.

Causes of false-negative and false-positive tests

Despite the excellent specificity of SE, we continue to see a subset of patients with false-positive tests (i.e., <50% diameter coronary artery stenosis on the subsequent angiogram) in the absence of left bundle branch morphology, right ventricular pacing, prior cardiac surgery, or abnormal wall tethering at baseline. These false-positive findings present a management challenge because it remains unclear whether and how to treat these patients [15].The mere presence of CAD is a poor gold standard for defining the false or true positivity of SE [16].

It is imperative to accomplish post-exercise imaging as soon as possible (≤1 min from cessation of exercise). This technique assumes that regional wall motion abnormalities will persist long enough into recovery to be detected. When abnormalities recover rapidly, false-negative results occur [9].

Finally, a subset of patients has microvascular abnormalities, a hypertensive response to exercise, vasomotor changes, endothelial dysfunction, and/or small vessel coronary disease that can lead to false-positive SE.

Pro/contra arguments of the test

The SE presents some advantages and limitations.

Advantages

The test is portable, non-invasive, and it is not associated with radiation exposure or contrast exposure. Rapid performance with immediate availability of results. Multistage imaging allows determination of ischaemic threshold. Since diagnostic ultrasound has no known adverse health effects, the risks are associated with the stress testing itself, not echocardiographic imaging. The cost of SE is low compared to alternative modalities [10,13].

Limitations

The primary limitation of SE is that interpretation remains subjective: this can reduce the reproducibility of SE and increase dependence on sonographer and interpreter skill and experience [10]. Dependence on image quality (imperfect feasibility) [13]. An additional problem is the “low volume” of SE examinations by a single operator in clinical practice [17].

Lower sensitivity for detection of mild CAD is not achieved or there is an inability to capture images near maximal stress. Subjectivity - requires an expert reader to interpret [13].

The intravenous injection of contrast agent improves the opacification of the myocardial border, but the analysis of myocardial perfusion remains problematic.

Conclusions

SE has developed into an important non-invasive imaging tool for the diagnosis, prognosis and follow-up of patients with angina pectoris. All imaging techniques have advantages and limitations. However, SE with exercise or dobutamine is an accurate, efficient, safe, and cost-effective non-invasive technique for the evaluation of myocardial ischaemia. SE should be carried out when the post-cycle ergometry test probability is intermediate, or the ECG is uninterpretable, and the dobutamine stress test should be carried out when an exercise test cannot be performed.

References


  1. Jespersen L, Hvelplund A, Abildstrøm SZ, Pedersen F, Galatius S, Madsen JK, Jørgensen E, Kelbæk H, Prescott E. Stable angina pectoris with no obstructive coronary artery disease is associated with increased risks of major adverse cardiovascular events. Eur Heart J. 2012 Mar;33(6):734-44.
  2. Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF, Heidenreich PA, Henkin RE, Pellikka PA, Pohost GM, Williams KA; American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; American College of Radiology; American Heart Association; American Society of Echocardiology; Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography; Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance; Society of Nuclear Medicine. ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Jun 9;53(23):2201-29. 
  3. Pellikka PA, Nagueh SF, Elhendy AA, Kuehl CA, Sawada SG; American Society of Echocardiography. American Society of Echocardiography recommendations for performance, interpretation, and application of stress echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2007 Sep;20(9):1021-41. 
  4. American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force; American Society of Echocardiography; American Heart Association; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; Heart Failure Society of America; Heart Rhythm Society; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Critical Care Medicine; Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography; Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, Douglas PS, Garcia MJ, Haines DE, Lai WW, Manning WJ, Patel AR, Picard MH, Polk DM, Ragosta M, Ward RP, Weiner RB. ACCF/ASE/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR 2011 Appropriate Use Criteria for Echocardiography. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Endorsed by the American College of Chest Physicians. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Mar 1;57(9):1126-66. 
  5. Morise AP, Haddad WJ, Beckner D. Development and validation of a clinical score to estimate the probability of coronary artery disease in men and women presenting with suspected coronary disease. Am J Med. 1997 Apr;102(4):350-6. 
  6. Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Patel MR, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM; American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Society of Echocardiography; American College of Emergency Physicians; American Heart Association; American Society of Nuclear Cardiology; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography; Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. ACCF/ASE/ACEP/AHA/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2008 appropriateness criteria for stress echocardiography: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Mar 18;51(11):1127-47. 
  7. Task Force Members, Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, Andreotti F, Arden C, Budaj A, Bugiardini R, Crea F, Cuisset T, Di Mario C, Ferreira JR, Gersh BJ, Gitt AK, Hulot JS, Marx N, Opie LH, Pfisterer M, Prescott E, Ruschitzka F, Sabaté M, Senior R, Taggart DP, van der Wall EE, Vrints CJ; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines, Zamorano JL, Achenbach S, Baumgartner H, Bax JJ, Bueno H, Dean V, Deaton C, Erol C, Fagard R, Ferrari R, Hasdai D, Hoes AW, Kirchhof P, Knuuti J, Kolh P, Lancellotti P, Linhart A, Nihoyannopoulos P, Piepoli MF, Ponikowski P, Sirnes PA, Tamargo JL, Tendera M, Torbicki A, Wijns W, Windecker S; Document Reviewers, Knuuti J, Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Claeys MJ, Donner-Banzhoff N, Erol C, Frank H, Funck-Brentano C, Gaemperli O, Gonzalez-Juanatey JR, Hamilos M, Hasdai D, Husted S, James SK, Kervinen K, Kolh P, Kristensen SD, Lancellotti P, Maggioni AP, Piepoli MF, Pries AR, Romeo F, Rydén L, Simoons ML, Sirnes PA, Steg PG, Timmis A, Wijns W, Windecker S, Yildirir A, Zamorano JL. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2013 Oct;34(38):2949-3003. 
  8. Henzlova MJ, Duvall WL, Einstein AJ, Travin MI, Verberne HJ. ASNC imaging guidelines for SPECT nuclear cardiology procedures: Stress, protocols, and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016 Jun;23(3):606-39. 
  9. Sicari R, Nihoyannopoulos P, Evangelista A, Kasprzak J, Lancellotti P, Poldermans D, Voigt JU, Zamorano JL; European Association of Echocardiography. Stress echocardiography expert consensus statement: European Association of Echocardiography (EAE) (a registered branch of the ESC). Eur J Echocardiogr. 2008 Jul;9(4):415-37. 
  10. Fine NM, Pellikka PA. Stress echocardiography for the detection and assessment of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2011 May;18(3):501-15.
  11. Isiadinso I, Shaw LJ. Diagnosis and risk stratification of women with stable ischemic heart disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016 Oct;23(5):986-90. 
  12. Acampa W, Assante R, Zampella E. The role of treadmill exercise testing in women. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016 Oct;23(5):991-6.
  13. Padang R, Pellikka PA. The role of stress echocardiography in the evaluation of coronary artery disease and myocardial ischemia in women. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016 Oct;23(5):1023-35. 
  14. Dolor RJ, Melloni C, Chatterjee R, Allen LaPointe NM, Williams JB Jr, Coeytaux RR, McBroom AJ, Musty MD, Wing L, Samsa GP, Patel MR. Treatment Strategies for Women With Coronary Artery Disease [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US);2012 Aug. Report No.: 12-EHC070-EF. AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. 
  15. Qamruddin S. False-Positive Stress Echocardiograms: A Continuing Challenge. Ochsner J. 2016 Fall;16(3):277-9. 
  16. Argulian E, Chaudhry FA. Evaluating left ventricular systolic dysfunction: Stress echocardiography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015 Oct;22(5):957-60. 
  17. Leischik R, Dworrak B, Sanchis-Gomar F, Lucia A, Buck T, Erbel R. Echocardiographic assessment of myocardial ischemia. Ann Transl Med. 2016 Jul;4(13):259.

Notes to editor


Author:

Dr. Guillermo Romero-Farina, MD, PhD, FESC, FASNC
Cardiology Department and Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Universitari Valld’Hebron, Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

 

Address for correspondence:

Paseo de la Grava, 21

Avinyonet del Penedés

08793 Barcelona, Spain

Email: guiromfar@gmail.com

Telephone number: +34 664577424

 

Author disclosure: 

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

 

 

 

The content of this article reflects the personal opinion of the author/s and is not necessarily the official position of the European Society of Cardiology.