Why the study?
Does supine bicycle exercise testing provide superior assessment of LVEF response compared to isometric handgrip exercise in patients with CAD?
Does supine bicycle exercise testing provide superior assessment of LVEF response compared to isometric handgrip exercise in patients with CAD?
Supine bicycle exercise testing is superior to isometric handgrip testing for evaluating LVEF response and differentiating disease severity in patients with CAD.
May favor supine bicycle over handgrip for LVEF assessment in CAD; extends prior comparisons but remains hypothesis-generating.
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) response to supine bicycle and isometric handgrip exercise was evaluated in 15 patients with documented coronary artery disease (CAD) and stress-induced ischemia using radionuclide angiography. For purposes of analysis, the patients were divided into two groups: group I (n = 7) with single-vessel disease and group II (n = 8) with multiple-vessel disease including 3 with left main artery disease. The studies were repeated 18 days later at similar external workloads to assess reproducibility of both tests. LVEF response to bicycle exercise was different for the two groups. The change in LVEF from rest to peak exercise was +0.04 +/- 0.02 for group I and -0.07 +/- 0.04 for group II (p less than .001). LVEP response to isometric handgrip exercise was not different between the two groups. The change from rest to end of handgrip exercise was -0.02 + 0.02 for group I and -0.05 +/- 0.02 for group II. The reproducibility of LVEF response to bicycle exercise at similar workloads on day 1 and day 19 was good (r = 0.85) while it was poor for isometric handgrip testing (r = 0.67). Our data demonstrate that radionuclide angiographic measurement of LVEF response to supine bicycle exercise testing is superior to LVEF response to isometric handgrip testing in the evaluation of patients with CAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaul et al. (1984) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: