Why the study?
Does stress echocardiography improve the identification of high-risk patients following myocardial infarction compared to treadmill electrocardiography or resting ejection fraction?
Does stress echocardiography improve the identification of high-risk patients following myocardial infarction compared to treadmill electrocardiography or resting ejection fraction?
Stress echocardiography is a practical and effective technique for identifying high-risk post-myocardial infarction patients with residual ischemia, outperforming treadmill ECG and resting ejection fraction.
Remote asynergy on stress echo may aid post-MI risk stratification; leaves open prospective validation versus ECG or resting EF.
Although high-risk patients following myocardial infarct are usually identified in the acute stage by clinical assessment and determination of left ventricular function at rest, a significant percentage of infarct patients with increased risks, i.e., presence of residual myocardial ischemia, remain undetected at discharge. Since the yield of adequate images for interpretation stress echocardiograms has been significantly improved with digital technology, stress echocardiography has become a truly practical technique to identify these patients. Presence of remote asynergy, i.e., asynergy not directly adjacent to the infarcted area and supposed to be related to another vascular region, directly following cessation of dynamic exercise appears to be highly related to multivessel disease and an unfavorable follow-up period. Treadmill electrocardiographic findings, however, appeared to be of limited value in this respect. Furthermore, the echocardiographic ejection fraction was also a poor predictor. The versatility of the technique, lack of injections, or radiation hazard, and the relatively low cost will undoubtedly increase the application of stress echocardiography for postinfarct stratification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Visser et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: