Key result
A multiparametric mathematical model based on quantitative deformation markers did not demonstrate incremental value over visual assessment for detecting stress-induced ischemia, yielding a sensitivity of 66.7% versus 75.8% for visual assessment in the validation cohort.
Why the study?
Does a multiparametric mathematical model based on quantitative deformation markers improve the detection of myocardial ischemia compared to visual assessment during dobutamine stress echocardiography in patients with known or suspected CAD?
Observational (n=256)
Blinded to clinical data and DSE results (for coronary angiography analysis)
No
Does a multiparametric mathematical model based on quantitative deformation markers improve the detection of myocardial ischemia compared to visual assessment during dobutamine stress echocardiography in patients with known or suspected CAD?
Absolute Event Rate: 66.7% vs 75.8%
A multiparametric mathematical model based on quantitative deformation markers did not provide incremental diagnostic value over conventional visual assessment for detecting stress-induced ischemia during dobutamine stress echocardiography.
Should not supplant visual assessment for ischemia on dobutamine stress echo; leaves open whether refined quantitative models merit prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate if the combination of several quantitative parameters into a mathematical model would enhance the detection of myocardial ischemia during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) when compared to conventional wall motion analysis. METHODS: In a prospective study design 151 patients (age 61.8 ± 9.2) in test group and 105 patients (age 64.0 ± 10.6) in validation group were selected and underwent DSE between January 2008 and December 2012. In all patients coronary angiography was performed within 6-8 weeks from DSE, considering at least one stenosis ≥50% per patient as significant coronary artery disease (CAD). Results of DSE visual assessment and myocardial velocity, strain and strain rate parameters derived from speckle tracking imaging were imported automatically to an originally created software. A mathematical model calculating prognosis of at least one stenosis per patient and stenosis in separate arteries was constructed. RESULTS: Myocardial ischemia was visually detected in 60 (39.7 %) and in 58 (54.2 %) patients of the test and validation group, respectively. A total of 76 (50.3 %) patients in the test group and 69 patients (65.7 %) in the validation group had ≥50% coronary stenosis. Sensitivity and specificity of the mathematical model per patient in the test group were 91.6 % and 86.3 % compared to 76.8 % and 89.0 % of the visual assessment, respectively. However, in the validation group the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value dropped down significantly becoming lower to visual assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial deformation imaging may potentially replace visual assessment with an automated predictive model for stress-induced ischemia detection. However, a multiparametric mathematical model based on quantitative deformation markers did not demonstrate incremental value to visual assessment of wall motion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Čelutkienė et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=256). Multiparametric mathematical model based on quantitative deformation markers vs. Visual assessment was evaluated on Sensitivity for detecting at least one ≥50% coronary stenosis per patient (validation group). A multiparametric mathematical model based on quantitative deformation markers did not demonstrate incremental value over visual assessment for detecting stress-induced ischemia, yielding a sensitivity of 66.7% versus 75.8% for visual assessment in the validation cohort.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: