Key result
Non-physician-led exercise stress testing matches physician supervision for safety and mortality outcomes.
Why the study?
Cost-containment issues and physician time constraints have encouraged the use of trained non-physician health professionals to supervise exercise stress tests, but evidence on safety and effectiveness was needed.
Does non-physician-led exercise stress testing maintain similar morbidity and mortality rates compared to physician-led testing in patients undergoing exercise stress testing?
Population
Patients undergoing exercise stress testing for arrhythmia provocation, exercise capacity assessment, and coronary heart disease evaluation
Comparison
Non-physician-led exercise stress testing vs physician-supervised exercise stress testing
Design
Review
Authors
Loading...
May ease staffing constraints in stress labs; leaves open the need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
Does non-physician-led exercise stress testing maintain similar morbidity and mortality rates compared to physician-led testing in patients undergoing exercise stress testing?
Non-physician-led exercise stress testing is a safe and effective alternative to physician-supervised testing, offering a viable solution to cost and time constraints.
Sanford et al. (2013) conducted a review in Patients undergoing exercise stress testing. Non-physician-led exercise stress testing vs. Physician-led or supervised exercise stress testing was evaluated on Morbidity and mortality rates. Non-physician-led exercise stress testing is a safe and effective practice with similar morbidity and mortality rates compared to physician-supervised testing.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: