ABSTRACT
Aims: There is a paucity of randomized diagnostic studies in women with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). This study sought to assess the relative value of exercise stress echocardiography (ESE) compared with exercise electrocardiography (Ex-ECG) in women with CAD. Methods and results: Accordingly, 416 women with no prior CAD and intermediate probability of CAD (mean pre-test probability 41%), were randomized to undergo either Ex-ECG or ESE. The primary endpoints were the positive predictive value (PPV) for the detection of significant CAD and downstream resource utilization. The PPV of ESE and Ex-ECG were 33% and 30% (P = 0.87), respectively for the detection of CAD. There were similar clinic visits (36 vs. 29, P = 0.44) and emergency visits with chest pain (28 vs. 25, P = 0.55) in the Ex-ECG and ESE arms, respectively. At 2.9 years, cardiac events were 6 Ex-ECG vs. 3 ESE, P = 0.31. Although initial diagnosis costs were higher for ESE, more women underwent further CAD testing in the Ex-ECG arm compared to the ESE arm (37 vs. 17, P = 0.003). Overall, there was higher downstream resource utilization (hospital attendances and investigations) in the Ex-ECG arm (P = 0.002). Using National Health Service tariffs 2020/21 (British pounds) the cumulative diagnostic costs were 7.4% lower for Ex-ECG compared with ESE, but this finding is sensitive to the cost differential between ESE and Ex-ECG. Conclusion: In intermediate-risk women who are able to exercise, Ex-ECG had similar efficacy to an ESE strategy, with higher resource utilization whilst providing cost savings.
