Real-world performance and accuracy of stress echocardiography: The EVAREST observational multi-centre study

Aims - Stress echocardiography is widely used to identify obstructive coronary artery disease. High accuracy is reported in expert hands but is dependent on operator training and image quality. The EVAREST study provides UK-wide data to evaluate real-world performance and accuracy of stress echocardiography. Methods and Results - Participants undergoing stress echocardiography for coronary artery disease were recruited from 31 hospitals. Participants were followed up through health records which underwent expert adjudication. Cardiac outcome was defined as anatomically or functionally-significant stenosis on angiography, revascularisation, medical management of ischaemia, acute coronary syndrome or cardiac-related death within six months. 5131 patients (55% male) participated with a median age of 65 years (IQR 57 – 74). 72.9% of studies used dobutamine and 68.5% were contrast studies. Inducible ischaemia was present in 19.3% of scans. Sensitivity and specificity for prediction of a cardiac outcome were 95.4% and 96.0%, respectively, with an accuracy of 95.9%. Sub-group analysis revealed high levels of predictive accuracy across a wide range of patient and protocol sub-groups, with the presence of a resting regional wall motion abnormalitiy significantly reducing the performance of both dobutamine (p<0.01) and exercise (p<0.05) stress echocardiography (p<0.05). Overall accuracy remained consistently high across all participating hospitals. Conclusion – Stress echocardiography has high accuracy across UK-based hospitals and thus indicates stress echocardiography is being delivered effectively in real-world practice, reinforcing its role as a first-line investigation in the assessment of patients with stable chest pain

Impact of COVID-19 on UK stress echocardiography practice: insights from the EVAREST sites.

Healthcare delivery is being transformed by COVID-19 to reduce transmission risk but continued delivery of routine clinical tests is essential. Stress echocardiography is one of the most widely used cardiac tests in the NHS. We assessed the impact of the first (W1) and second (W2) waves of the pandemic on ability to deliver stress echocardiography. Clinical echocardiography teams in 31 NHS hospitals participating in the EVAREST study were asked in July and November 2020 to complete a survey on the structure and delivery of stress echocardiography as well as impact on patients and staff. Results were compared to stress echocardiography activity in the same centre during January 2020. 24 and 19 NHS hospitals completed the survey in July and November, respectively. A 55% reduction in the number of studies performed was reported in W1, recovering to exceed pre-COVID rates in W2. The major change was in mode of stress delivery. 70% of sites stopped their exercise stress service in W1, compared to 19% in W2. In those still using exercise during W1, 50% were wearing FFP3/N95 masks, falling to 38% in W2. There was also significant variability in patient screening practices with 7 different pre-screening questionnaires used in W1 and 6 in W2. Stress echocardiography delivery restarted effectively after COVID-19 with adaptations to reduce transmission that means activity has been able to continue, and exceed, pre-COVID-19 levels during the second wave. Further standardisation of protocols for patient screening and PPE may help further improve consistency of practice within the UK

Real world hospital costs following stress echocardiography in the UK: a costing study from the EVAREST/BSE-NSTEP multi-centre study

Background: Stress echocardiography is widely used to detect coronary artery disease, but little evidence on downstream hospital costs in real-world practice is available. We examined how stress echocardiography accuracy and downstream hospital costs vary across NHS hospitals and identified key factors that affect costs to help inform future clinical planning and guidelines. Methods: Data on 7636 patients recruited from 31 NHS hospitals within the UK between 2014 and 2020 as part of EVAREST/BSE-NSTEP clinical study, were used. Data included all diagnostic tests, procedures, and hospital admissions for 12 months after a stress echocardiogram and were costed using the NHS national unit costs. A decision tree was built to illustrate the clinical pathway and estimate average downstream hospital costs. Multi-level regression analysis was performed to identify variation in accuracy and costs at both patient, procedural, and hospital level. Linear regression and extrapolation were used to estimate annual hospital cost-savings associated with increasing predictive accuracy at hospital and national level. Results: Stress echocardiography accuracy varied with patient, hospital and operator characteristics. Hypertension, presence of wall motion abnormalities and higher number of hospital cardiology outpatient attendances annually reduced accuracy, adjusted odds ratio of 0.78 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.93), 0.27 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.48), 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 0.99) respectively, whereas a prior myocardial infarction, angiotensin receptor blocker medication, and greater operator experience increased accuracy, adjusted odds ratio of 1.77 (95% CI 1.34 to 2.33), 1.64 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.22), and 1.06 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.09) respectively. Average downstream costs were £646 per patient (SD 1796) with significant variation across hospitals. The average downstream costs between the 31 hospitals varied from £384–1730 per patient. False positive and false negative tests were associated with average downstream costs of £1446 (SD £601) and £4192 (SD 3332) respectively, driven by increased non-elective hospital admissions, adjusted odds ratio 2.48 (95% CI 1.08 to 5.66), 21.06 (95% CI 10.41 to 42.59) respectively. We estimated that an increase in accuracy by 1 percentage point could save the NHS in the UK £3.2 million annually. Conclusion: This study provides real-world evidence of downstream costs associated with stress echocardiography practice in the UK and estimates how improvements in accuracy could impact healthcare expenditure in the NHS. A real-world downstream costing approach could be adopted more widely in evaluation of imaging tests and interventions to reflect actual value for money and support realistic planning

Impact of COVID-19 on UK stress echocardiography practice: insights from the EVAREST sites

Introduction Healthcare delivery is being transformed by COVID-19 to reduce transmission risk but continued delivery of routine clinical tests is essential. Stress echocardiography is one of the most widely used cardiac tests in the NHS. We assessed the impact of the first (W1) and second (W2) waves of the pandemic on ability to deliver stress echocardiography. Methods Clinical echocardiography teams in 31 NHS hospitals participating in the EVAREST study were asked in July and November 2020 to complete a survey on the structure and delivery of stress echocardiography as well as impact on patients and staff. Results were compared to stress echocardiography activity in the same centre during January 2020. Results 24 and 19 NHS hospitals completed the survey in July and November, respectively. A 55% reduction in the number of studies performed was reported in W1, recovering to exceed pre-COVID rates in W2. The major change was in mode of stress delivery. 70% of sites stopped their exercise stress service in W1, compared to 19% in W2. In those still using exercise during W1, 50% were wearing FFP3/N95 masks, falling to 38% in W2. There was also significant variability in patient screening practices with 7 different pre-screening questionnaires used in W1 and 6 in W2. Conclusion Stress echocardiography delivery restarted effectively after COVID-19 with adaptations to reduce transmission that means activity has been able to continue, and exceed, pre-COVID-19 levels during the second wave. Further standardization of protocols for patient screening and PPE may help further improve consistency of practice within the UK

Real-world performance and accuracy of stress echocardiography: the EVAREST observational multi-centre study

Aims Stress echocardiography is widely used to identify obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). High accuracy is reported in expert hands but is dependent on operator training and image quality. The EVAREST study provides UK-wide data to evaluate real-world performance and accuracy of stress echocardiography. Methods and results Participants undergoing stress echocardiography for CAD were recruited from 31 hospitals. Participants were followed up through health records which underwent expert adjudication. Cardiac outcome was defined as anatomically or functionally significant stenosis on angiography, revascularization, medical management of ischaemia, acute coronary syndrome, or cardiac-related death within 6 months. A total of 5131 patients (55% male) participated with a median age of 65 years (interquartile range 57–74). 72.9% of studies used dobutamine and 68.5% were contrast studies. Inducible ischaemia was present in 19.3% of scans. Sensitivity and specificity for prediction of a cardiac outcome were 95.4% and 96.0%, respectively, with an accuracy of 95.9%. Sub-group analysis revealed high levels of predictive accuracy across a wide range of patient and protocol sub-groups, with the presence of a resting regional wall motion abnormalitiy significantly reducing the performance of both dobutamine (P < 0.01) and exercise (P < 0.05) stress echocardiography. Overall accuracy remained consistently high across all participating hospitals. Conclusion Stress echocardiography has high accuracy across UK-based hospitals and thus indicates stress echocardiography is being delivered effectively in real-world practice, reinforcing its role as a first-line investigation in the assessment of patients with stable chest pain

Effect of moderate to high intensity aerobic exercise on blood pressure in Young Adults: the TEPHRA open, two-arm, parallel superiority randomized clinical trial

Background: Exercise is advised for young adults with elevated blood pressure, but no trials have investigated efficacy at this age. We aimed to determine whether aerobic exercise, self-monitoring and motivational coaching lowers blood pressure in this group. Methods: The study was a single-centre, open, two-arm, parallel superiority randomized clinical trial with open community-based recruitment of physically-inactive 18-35 year old adults with awake 24-hour blood pressure 115/75mmHg-159/99mmHg, BMI37 weeks) to the intervention group, who received 16-weeks aerobic exercise training (three aerobic training sessions per week of 60 minutes per session at 60-80% peak heart rate, physical activity self-monitoring with encouragement to do 10000 steps per day and motivational coaching to maintain physical activity upon completion of the intervention. The control group were sign-posted to educational materials on hypertension and recommended lifestyle behaviours. Investigators performing statistical analyses were blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was 24-hour awake ambulatory blood pressure (systolic and diastolic) change from baseline to 16-weeks on an intention-to-treat basis. Clinicaltrials.gov registered on March 30, 2016 (NCT02723552). Findings: Enrolment occurred between 30/06/2016- 26/10/2018. Among the 203 randomized young adults (n=102 in the intervention group; n=101 in the control group), 178 (88%; n=76 intervention group, n=84 control group) completed 16-week follow-up and 160 (79%; n=68 intervention group, n=69 control group) completed 52-weeks follow-up. There were no group differences in awake systolic (0·0mmHg [95%CI, -2·9 to 2·8]; P=0·98) or awake diastolic ambulatory blood pressure (0·6mmHg [95%CI, -1·4. to 2·6]; P=0·58). Aerobic training increased peak oxygen uptake (2·8ml/kg/min [95%CI, 1·6 to 4·0]) and peak wattage (14·2watts [95%CI, 7·6 to 20·9]) at 16-weeks. There were no intervention effects at 52-weeks follow-up. Intepretation: These results do not support the exclusive use of moderate to high intensity aerobic exercise training for blood pressure control in young adults. Funding: Wellcome Trust, British Heart Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.</p