Key result
Stress echocardiography in LBBB patients had poor positive predictive value for angiographic CAD (35.7%-40%), but an 83% negative predictive value for hard ischemic events during follow-up.
Why the study?
Does stress echocardiography accurately identify significant coronary artery disease in higher-risk patients with left bundle-branch block?
Observational (n=60)
Does stress echocardiography accurately identify significant coronary artery disease in higher-risk patients with left bundle-branch block?
Stress echocardiography has a poor positive predictive value for identifying significant angiographic CAD in patients with LBBB, though its negative predictive value for hard ischemic events is acceptable.
Caution advised using stress echo for CAD detection in LBBB; leaves open need for validated alternatives in prospective studies.
HYPOTHESIS: The aim of the study was to determine the utility of stress echocardiography for identification of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in higher-risk patients with an underlying left bundle-branch block (LBBB). METHODS: Patients with LBBB undergoing stress echocardiography were divided into 2 groups: group 1 (no history MI), group 2 (history MI). Positive stress echocardiograms were compared with the presence of >50% luminal-diameter stenosis during coronary angiography. During the follow-up (FU) period, cardiac events were determined for hard and soft endpoints. RESULTS: Sixty consecutive patients with LBBB underwent stress echocardiography. Twenty-eight patients had a positive stress echocardiogram (20 group 1; 8 group 2). Nineteen of these patients underwent coronary angiography (14 group 1; 5 group 2). In group 1, regional wall motion abnormality (RWMA) correlated with coronary anatomy in only 5 patients, while in group 2, RWMA correlated with coronary anatomy in only 2 patients. There were 12 false positives, with echocardiographic abnormalities identified. The positive predictive values in groups 1 and 2 were 35.7% and 40%, respectively. During the FU period, there was 1 mortality, 2 MI, 2 coronary revascularizations, and 6 hospitalizations (2 chest pain, 1 CHF, 3 coronary angiography). The negative predictive value for hard endpoints was 83%. CONCLUSION: Stress echocardiography has a poor positive predictive value to identify significant angiographic CAD in higher-risk patients with LBBB; however, the negative predictive value for hard ischemic events is similar to patients without LBBB.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lewis et al. (2007) conducted an observational in Left bundle-branch block (LBBB) (n=60). Stress echocardiography vs. Coronary angiography was evaluated on Presence of >50% luminal-diameter stenosis during coronary angiography. Stress echocardiography in LBBB patients had poor positive predictive value for angiographic CAD (35.7%-40%), but an 83% negative predictive value for hard ischemic events during follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: