Stress myocardial perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging vs. coronary CT angiography in the diagnostic work-up of patients with stable chest pain: comparative effectiveness and costs

Background:To determine the comparative effectiveness and costs of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) for diagnosing coronary artery disease (CAD).Methods:A Markov micro-simulation model for 60-year-old patients with stable chest pain was developed, analyzing the perspective of the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and the Netherlands (NL).CCTA, CMR, and CCTA+CMR (CCTA, if positive followed by CMR) were considered and compared to direct catheter-based angiography (CAG) and no testing. The strategies were considered both as conservative strategy (patients with mildly-positive test results are not referred for CAG), and as invasive strategy (all patients with positive test results are referred for CAG). Outcome measures included lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and radiation exposure.Results:Differences in effectiveness (QALYs) across diagnostic strategies were very small (range 0.001-0.016). For 60-year old men and women with a pre-test probability of 30% (and up to 70-90%, depending on the country considered), the CCTA, CMR, and CAG strategies were dominated, because the CCTA+CMR-conservative strategy was slightly more effective, and less expensive. Compared to the CCTA+CMR-conservative strategy, the CCTA+CMR-invasive strategy was slightly more costly and slightly more effective. The CCTA+CMR-invasive strategy was cost-effective for the US and NL, but not for the UK. When patients with false-negative test results were assumed to remain false-negative for 3 years, differences between strategies increased, and the CCTA-invasive strategy became cost-effective for UK and NL.Conclusions:Quality-adjusted life expectancy was similar across strategies. The CCTA+CMR strategy was cost-effective up to a pre-test probability of 70-90%, depending on the country. Above these thresholds, the CMR-strategy was cost-effective.<br/

Stress myocardial perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging vs. coronary CT angiography in the diagnostic work-up of patients with stable chest pain:comparative effectiveness and costs

Background:To determine the comparative effectiveness and costs of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) and stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) for diagnosing coronary artery disease (CAD).Methods:A Markov micro-simulation model for 60-year-old patients with stable chest pain was developed, analyzing the perspective of the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and the Netherlands (NL).CCTA, CMR, and CCTA+CMR (CCTA, if positive followed by CMR) were considered and compared to direct catheter-based angiography (CAG) and no testing. The strategies were considered both as conservative strategy (patients with mildly-positive test results are not referred for CAG), and as invasive strategy (all patients with positive test results are referred for CAG). Outcome measures included lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and radiation exposure.Results:Differences in effectiveness (QALYs) across diagnostic strategies were very small (range 0.001-0.016). For 60-year old men and women with a pre-test probability of 30% (and up to 70-90%, depending on the country considered), the CCTA, CMR, and CAG strategies were dominated, because the CCTA+CMR-conservative strategy was slightly more effective, and less expensive. Compared to the CCTA+CMR-conservative strategy, the CCTA+CMR-invasive strategy was slightly more costly and slightly more effective. The CCTA+CMR-invasive strategy was cost-effective for the US and NL, but not for the UK. When patients with false-negative test results were assumed to remain false-negative for 3 years, differences between strategies increased, and the CCTA-invasive strategy became cost-effective for UK and NL.Conclusions:Quality-adjusted life expectancy was similar across strategies. The CCTA+CMR strategy was cost-effective up to a pre-test probability of 70-90%, depending on the country. Above these thresholds, the CMR-strategy was cost-effective.<br/

Remote second-hand tobacco exposure in flight attendants is associated with systemic but not pulmonary hypertension

Background: Second-hand tobacco smoke has been associated with cardiopulmonary dysfunction. We sought to examine the residual effects of remote second-hand smoke exposure on resting and exercise cardiopulmonary hemodynamics. We hypothesized that remote secondhand smoke exposure results in persistent cardiopulmonary hemodynamic abnormalities. Methods: Participants were non-smoking flight attendants who worked in airline cabins prior to the in-flight tobacco ban. Participants underwent clinical evaluations and completed smoke exposure questionnaires. We used Doppler echocardiography to measure pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) at rest and during supine bicycle ergometer exercise, using the validated formula TRV/VTIRVOT × 10 + 0.16, where VTIRVOT is the velocity time integral at the right ventricular outflow tract and TRV is the tricuspid regurgitation velocity. The group was divided into quartiles according to the degree of smoke exposure. Analysis of variance was used to determine the differences in hemodynamic outcomes. Results: Seventy-nine flight attendants were included in our analysis. Baseline characteristics among participants in each quartile of smoke exposure were similar except for history of systemic hypertension, which was more prevalent in the highest quartile. Peak exercise PASP rose to the same degree in all test groups (mean PASP 44 mm Hg, p = 0.25), and PVR increased by approximately 27% in all quartiles. There was no significant difference in pulmonary artery systolic pressure or pulmonary vascular resistance among quartiles of smoke exposure. Conclusions: We found that remote heavy second-hand smoke exposure from in-flight tobacco is associated with systemic hypertension but does not have demonstrable pulmonary hemodynamic consequences

Evaluation of premature ventricular complexes during in‐hospital ECG monitoring as a predictor of ventricular tachycardia in an intensive care unit cohort

In-hospital electrocardiographic (ECG) monitors are typically configured to alarm for premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) due to the potential association of PVCs with ventricular tachycardia (VT). However, no contemporary hospital-based studies have examined the association of PVCs with VT. Hence, the benefit of PVC monitoring in hospitalized patients is largely unknown. This secondary analysis used a large PVC alarm data set to determine whether PVCs identified during continuous ECG monitoring were associated with VT, in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), and/or death in a cohort of adult intensive care unit patients. Six PVC types were examined (i.e., isolated, bigeminy, trigeminy, couplets, R-on-T, and run PVCs) and were compared between patients with and without VT, IHCA, and/or death. Of 445 patients, 48 (10.8%) had VT; 11 (2.5%) had IHCA; and 49 (11%) died. Isolated and run PVC counts were higher in the VT group (p = 0.03 both), but group differences were not seen for the other four PVC types. The regression models showed no significant associations between any of the six PVC types and VT or death, although confidence intervals were wide. Due to the&nbsp;small number of cases, we were unable to test for associations between PVCs and IHCA. Our findings suggest that we should question the clinical relevance of activating PVC alarms as a forewarning of VT, and more work should be done with larger sample sizes. A more precise characterization of clinically relevant PVCs that might be associated with VT is warranted

ACC/AHA guideline update for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery - Executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee to Update the 1996 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery)

These guidelines represent an update of those published in 1996 and are intended for physicians who are involved in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. They provide a framework for considering cardiac risk of noncardiac surgery in a variety of patient and surgical situations. The overriding theme of these guidelines is that preoperative intervention is rarely necessary simply to lower the risk of surgery unless such intervention is indicated irrespective of the preoperative context. The purpose of preoperative evaluation is not simply to give medical clearance but rather to perform an evaluation of the patient’s current medical status; make recommendations concerning the evaluation, management, and risk of cardiac problems over the entire perioperative period; and provide a clinical risk profile that the patient, primary physician, anesthesiologist, and surgeon can use in making treatment decisions that may influence short- and long-term cardiac outcomes. The goal of the consultation is to identify the most appropriate testing and treatment strategies to optimize care of the patient, provide assessment of both short- and long-term cardiac risk, and avoid unnecessary testing in this era of cost containment

ACC/AHA guideline update for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery - Executive summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1996 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery)

These guidelines represent an update of those published in 1996 and are intended for physicians who are involved in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. They provide a framework for considering cardiac risk of noncardiac surgery in a variety of patient and surgical situations. The overriding theme of these guidelines is that preoperative intervention is rarely necessary simply to lower the risk of surgery unless such intervention is indicated irrespective of the preoperative context. The purpose of preoperative evaluation is not simply to give medical clearance but rather to perform an evaluation of the patient’s current medical status; make recommendations concerning the evaluation, management, and risk of cardiac problems over the entire perioperative period; and provide a clinical risk profile that the patient, primary physician, anesthesiologist, and surgeon can use in making treatment decisions that may influence short- and long-term cardiac outcomes. The goal of the consultation is to identify the most appropriate testing and treatment strategies to optimize care of the patient, provide assessment of both short- and long-term cardiac risk, and avoid unnecessary testing in this era of cost containment

ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery)

These guidelines represent an update to those published in 2002 and are intended for physicians and nonphysician caregivers who are involved in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. They provide a framework for considering cardiac risk of noncardiac surgery in a variety of patient and surgical situations. The writing committee that prepared these guidelines strove to incorporate what is currently known about perioperative risk and how this knowledge can be used in the individual patient