Why the study?
Does the atrial pacing test improve success rate, reproducibility, and safety compared to the supine bicycle exercise test in subjects evaluated for chest pain?
Does the atrial pacing test improve success rate, reproducibility, and safety compared to the supine bicycle exercise test in subjects evaluated for chest pain?
The atrial pacing test may offer superior success rate, reproducibility, and safety compared to supine bicycle exercise testing for evaluating chest pain.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Should not yet change chest pain evaluation practices; leaves open need for randomized confirmation of superiority.
The atrial pacing test was performed on 62 subjects - 10 fit medical students, 15 patients with proven coronary artery disease and 37 patients referred for the elucidation of equivocal chest pain. Forty-nine of those studied were also subjected to a supine bicycle exercise test. The atrial pacing test appeared superior in regard to success rate, reproducibility and safety. Some disadvantages of both tests, hitherto ignored, are discussed. The phenomenon of the long P-R interval occurring at medium pacing rates was seen more frequently in the normal subjects and in those patients without coronary artery disease, in contrast to previously published work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brooks et al. (1971) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: