[Appropriateness of prescription of exercise stress test, echocardiography, Holter monitoring and vascular echography]. / L'appropriatezza dei test cardiologici non invasivi. studio osservazionale sull'appropriatezza della prescrizione del test da sforzo, dell'ecocardiogramma, dell'ECG dinamico e dell'ecografia vascolare.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of prescription of non-invasive cardiological tests (exercise stress test, echocardiography, Holter monitoring and vascular echography), consecutively performed in our outpatient laboratory during 4 weeks. METHODS: We collected the following data: the appropriateness of prescription (according to the Italian Federation of Cardiology guidelines); test indications; the prescribing physician (cardiologist/non-cardiologist); type of prescription (elective/urgent); clinical utility (useful/useless) and result (normal/abnormal) of each test. RESULTS: We evaluated 960 prescriptions (320 exercise tests; 282 echocardiograms; 158 Holter tests; 200 vascular echographies). Test indications were appropriate (class I) in 37%, doubtfully appropriate (class II) in 39% and inappropriate (class III) in 24% of the cases. The appropriateness was slightly better for vascular echography and echocardiography (class I: 44% and 43%, respectively), markedly worse for exercise test (class I: 27%). The tests were considered useful in 46% and abnormal in 39% of the cases. Cardiologist-prescribed exams resulted more often appropriate (class I: 53 vs 30%; class II: 41 vs 38%; class III: 6 vs. 32%; p = 0.0001), more often useful (74 vs. 34%; p = 0.0001) and more frequently abnormal (43 vs. 37%; p = 0.05), when compared to non-cardiologist-prescribed exams. No differences in appropriateness, utility and test result have been detected between elective and urgent exams. Exercise test, echocardiogram and Holter monitoring resulted more often appropriate and useful when prescribed by cardiologists. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that only one third of prescriptions for non-invasive cardiological tests are appropriate. Cardiologist-prescribed exams are more often appropriate, useful and abnormal.

Abciximab improves 6-month clinical outcome after rescue coronary angioplasty.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available concerning the effects on clinical outcome and left ventricular function of abciximab administration in patients undergoing rescue percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) after failed thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. The aim of the study was to investigate such effects. METHODS: Eighty-nine consecutive patients referred to our laboratory from other hospitals for rescue PTCA within 24 hours from the onset of chest pain were prospectively randomized before the procedure to abciximab treatment (44 patients) or placebo (45 patients). No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the 2 groups. Study end points were the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) such as death, reinfarction, congestive heart failure, target lesion revascularization, or recurrent ischemia at 30-day and 6-month follow-up and the occurrence of periprocedural bleeding. RESULTS: Mean time from symptom onset to reperfusion was 8.5 +/-5.4 hours; rescue PTCA was successful in 96% of patients. The incidence of major, moderate, and minor bleeding was similar in the 2 groups. At 30-day follow-up, the echocardiographic left ventricular wall motion score index showed a significantly higher improvement in the abciximab group versus the placebo group (P <.001). At 6-month follow-up, the incidence of MACE was 11% in the abciximab group versus 38% in the placebo group (P =.004). Abciximab administration (P =.003) and cardiogenic shock (P =.005) were the only independent predictors of the occurrence of MACE at multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Treatment with abciximab during rescue PTCA positively affects clinical outcome at 6-month follow-up without increasing periprocedural bleeding.