[Evaluation of the appropriateness of prescribing non-invasive cardiologic tests]. / La valutazione dell'appropriatezza della prescrizione dei test cardiologici non invasivi.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the appropriateness of the prescription of echocardiography, exercise testing, Holter monitoring and vascular sonography for ambulatory patients, performed during 4 weeks in 21 outpatient laboratories in Tuscany and Umbria, Italy. METHODS: We collected the following data: the appropriateness of the prescription (according to the guidelines of the Italian Federation of Cardiology), the prescribing physician (cardiologist vs noncardiologist), the synthetic result (normal vs abnormal) and the clinical utility (useful vs useless) of each exam. RESULTS: We evaluated 5614 prescriptions (patients: 3027 males, 2587 females; mean age 63 years, range 14-96 years). The indication to the test was of class I (appropriate) in 45.3%, of class II (doubtfully appropriate) in 34.8% and of class III (inappropriate) in 19.9% of the cases. The test was abnormal in 58.3% of class I exams vs 17% of class III exams (p < 0.05). The test was useful in 72.4% of class I exams vs 17.1% of class III exams (p < 0.05). The test was prescribed by a cardiologist in 1882 cases (33.5%). Cardiologist-prescribed exams were of class I in 57.3%, of class II in 32.4% and of class III in 10.3% of the cases vs 39.2, 36.1 and 24.7% of non-cardiologist-prescribed exams (p < 0.05). Cardiologist-prescribed exams were abnormal in 53.4% of the cases vs 39% of those of non-cardiologists' (odds ratio 1.76, 95% confidence interval 1.58-1.97; p < 0.05). Cardiologist-prescribed exams were useful in 64.7% of the cases vs 44.4% of those of non-cardiologists' (odds ratio 2.26, 95% confidence interval 2.02-2.53; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In Tuscany and Umbria, Italy, less than half of the prescriptions for non-invasive diagnostic tests are appropriate: appropriately prescribed exams more often provide abnormal and useful results; cardiologist-prescribed exams are more often appropriate, abnormal and useful.

Safety and feasibility of dobutamine and dipyridamole stress echocardiography in hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVES: To establish whether safety and feasibility of dobutamine and dipyridamole stress echocardiography are affected by history of hypertension. METHODS: Data on 2200 consecutive pharmacologic stress echocardiography (959 dobutamine and 1241 dipyridamole) performed between October 1990 and February 2001 at a single cardiology centre, were analysed. RESULTS: There were two complications (1/480 tests) during dobutamine (one sustained ventricular tachycardia and one severe asthmatic attack following antidote administration) and two (1/620 tests) during dipyridamole (one non-Q wave myocardial infarction and one sustained ventricular tachycardia) stress. Complications or limiting side effects were observed in 83/959 patients (48/430 hypertensives and 35/529 normotensives) with dobutamine and in 34/1241 patients (17/571 hypertensives and 17/670 normotensives) with dipyridamole stress. Therefore, the overall feasibility was 88.8% in hypertensives and 93.4% in normotensives (P = 0.013) for dobutamine, and 97% in hypertensives and 97.5% in normotensives (P = 0.64) for dipyridamole. Dipyridamole was significantly more feasible than dobutamine in both hypertensive (P < 0.0001) and normotensive (P = 0.0006) subjects. Logistic regression analysis failed to identify clinical or echocardiographic predictors of adverse reactions with dipyridamole, while history of hypertension [odds ratio (OR) = 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-2.8, P = 0.0138] was the only independent predictor of cumulative adverse reactions with dobutamine stress. In addition, history of hypertension (OR = 3.2, 95% CI, 1.2-8.5, P = 0.0166), resting wall motion abnormalities (OR = 1.8, 95% CI, 1.1-3.1, P = 0.0282), and age over 70 years (OR = 4.8, 95% CI, 1.5-15.3, P = 0.0087) predicted hypertensive response, ventricular tachycardia, and atrial fibrillation, respectively. No covariate was associated with hypotensive response during dobutamine test. CONCLUSIONS: Dipyridamole has a slightly better safety profile and significantly higher feasibility than dobutamine stress both in hypertensives and in normotensives. In addition, the history of systemic hypertension is an independent predictor of cumulative adverse effects during dobutamine but not during dipyridamole stress.