Why the study?
Does central laboratory echocardiographic assessment of cardiac function predict outcomes better than local assessment in patients with chronic stable angina?
Does central laboratory echocardiographic assessment of cardiac function predict outcomes better than local assessment in patients with chronic stable angina?
Central core laboratory measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction provides more powerful prognostic information than local investigator measurement in patients with stable angina.
Central core lab LVEF may enhance prognostication in stable angina; leaves open whether it should replace local assessment in routine care.
AIMS: To evaluate the relationship between echocardiographic cardiac function and outcome in patients with stable symptomatic angina. METHODS: Baseline echo left ventricular ejection fraction and volume data measured in a central laboratory was available for 7016 patients (92% of the total) participating in the ACTION trial (A Coronary disease Trial Investigating Outcome with Nifedipine GITS). Ejection fraction was also measured by investigators. Evaluation of the different echocardiographic variables was based on adjusted hazard ratios comparing the unfavourable limit of the 90% range of the variable concerned to the favourable limit. RESULTS: The centrally measured ejection fraction was the most powerful predictor of all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio=2.5), myocardial infarction, any stroke or transient ischaemic attack and overt heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio=4.5). The addition of either end systolic volume or end diastolic volume to ejection fraction did not materially affect the power of prediction. Compared to the central ejection fraction measurement, the investigator-measured ejection fraction was a less powerful predictor for all outcomes considered. CONCLUSION: Routine echocardiography carefully analysed by standardised methods provides useful prognostic information in patients with stable angina, including for total mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dart et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: