The Effect of Rate-Controlling Medication on the Performance and Outcome of Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography in the Assessment of Patients with Suspected Angina: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background/Objectives: Stress echocardiography (SE) had been recommended by professional societies for assessing patients with suspected angina. SE protocols are variable across hospitals and countries in the recommendation of the cessation of rate-controlling medication (RCMx) prior to SE. Some expert opinion papers recommend the cessation of beta receptor blockers (BBs) and rate-controlling calcium channel blockers 48 h prior to SE to improve the diagnostic accuracy of the test. There is no evidence that the continuation of RCMx can affect the outcome of SE and short-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). To investigate the efficacy of Dobutamine SE in a cohort of patients where the cessation of rate-controlling medication has not been mandated, we reviewed our data over a one-year period in patients investigated for suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: A retrospective data analysis was performed on 227 consecutive patients who underwent Dobutamine SE between January 2022 and January 2023 in a single centre. In addition to dobutamine, the protocol allowed the administration of intravenous atropine (maximum dose of 1.2 mg) and a “top up” handgrip exercise at the discretion of the performing cardiologist. We assessed the Dobutamine SE outcome (positive vs. negative), target heart rate (THR, 85% of maximum age predicted), and the achieved peak HR in the two groups with RCMx and without RCMx. We analysed the patients’ characteristics and 12-month outcomes of a combined MACE of death, non-fatal MI, stroke, admission with angina, and unplanned revascularisation. Results: Of the 227 patients, 61% were on No-RCMx (male 40%). Ninety-three percent of the patients on RCMx were on BB and 7% on other rate-controlling medications. The THR was achieved in 74% of the patients with-RCMx and 90% in the without-RCMx groups p = 0.0018. Positive Dobutamine SE was observed in 48% (43/89) of patients on RCMx vs. 28% (39/138) on No-RCMx (p = 0.0022). Patients who did not reach THR 43% (16/37) had positive Dobutamine SE compared to 35% (66/190) who reached THR (p = 0.626). There was no difference between groups in the peak WMSI. Logistic regression analysis showed that being on RCMx was independently associated with positive Dobutamine SE (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.06–3.91, and p = 0.034). The MACE rate was higher in patients where the THR was not achieved (9/37, 24.0%) vs. where THR was achieved (9/190, 4.7%), p < 0.001, in both the with-RCMx (7/30, 23% vs. 6/66, 9.1%, p = 0.013) and without-RCMx (2/14, 14% vs. 3/124, 2.4%; p = 0.025) groups, respectively. RCMx was independently associated with MACE (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.227–11.046, and p = 0.020). Conclusions: The use of RCMx proved to be a predictor of both SE and MACE outcomes irrespective of the achieved THR. Our data supports the practice that patients referred for Dobutamine SE on RCMx can continue taking them without impact on the test accuracy.