ABSTRACT
With stress echo (SE) 2020 study, a new standard of practice in stress imaging was developed and disseminated: the ABCDE protocol for functional testing within and beyond CAD. ABCDE protocol was the fruit of SE 2020, and is the seed of SE 2030, which is articulated in 12 projects: 1-SE in coronary artery disease (SECAD); 2-SE in diastolic heart failure (SEDIA); 3-SE in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (SEHCA); 4-SE post-chest radiotherapy and chemotherapy (SERA); 5-Artificial intelligence SE evaluation (AI-SEE); 6-Environmental stress echocardiography and air pollution (ESTER); 7-SE in repaired Tetralogy of Fallot (SETOF); 8-SE in post-COVID-19 (SECOV); 9: Recovery by stress echo of conventionally unfit donor good hearts (RESURGE); 10-SE for mitral ischemic regurgitation (SEMIR); 11-SE in valvular heart disease (SEVA); 12-SE for coronary vasospasm (SESPASM). The study aims to recruit in the next 5 years (2021-2025) ≥10,000 patients followed for ≥5 years (up to 2030) from ≥20 quality-controlled laboratories from ≥10 countries. In this COVID-19 era of sustainable health care delivery, SE2030 will provide the evidence to finally recommend SE as the optimal and versatile imaging modality for functional testing anywhere, any time, and in any patient.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: No data are available about whether Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have led to changes in clinical profiles or results of exercise testing once the usual activity was reassumed, as well as if wearing a facemask has any impact on the tests. The aim of this study is to evaluate differences in the patients referred to exercise stress testing in the context of COVID-19 pandemic and analyse the feasibility and results of these tests wearing a facemask. METHODS: We included all patients referred for an exercise test from 1 June to 30 September 2020 and compared them with the patients attended within the same period in 2019 before and after propensity score matching. All patients referred in 2020 wore a facemask. RESULTS: A total of 854 patients were included: 398 in the 2020 group and 456 in 2019. No significant differences in baseline characteristics of the patients were observed, with the exception of dyspnoea, which was nearly twice as high in 2020 as compared with 2019. Regarding the results of the tests, no differences were observed, with almost 80% of maximal tests, similar functional capacity and over a 20% of positive exercise tests in both groups. These results remained after propensity score matching. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 pandemic has not changed the clinical profile of patients referred to exercise testing. In addition, performing exercise testing wearing a facemask is feasible, with no influence in functional capacity and clinical results.