The current study is designed to have broad generalizability and inform a potential shift toward greater utilization of stress echocardiography with UCA. This will be accomplished by comparing UCA stress echocardiography with myocardial SPECT among hospitalized patients presenting with atraumatic chest pain. This study seeks to demonstrate: clinical comparability of the 2 modalities (based on non-diagnostic test rates), improved care efficiency (based on length of stay), lower costs, improved provider satisfaction, and a presumed improved safety profile through the elimination of radiation exposure. Primary Hypothesis: A strategy of routine UCA (Optison™) enhanced stress echocardiography will result in a clinically non-diagnostic test rate comparable to myocardial SPECT among patients hospitalized (inpatient or hospital observation status) with atraumatic chest pain.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
240
Comparative Effectiveness of cardiac stress imaging modalities
Denver Health Medical Center
Denver, Colorado, United States
Rate of non-diagnostic tests between ultrasound contrast enhanced stress echocardiography and myocardial SPECT
Non-diagnostic test rates will be the principal outcome of interest and are defined as those studies that do not allow a clinical decision for patient disposition (alternative non-invasive modality ordered, imaging inadequate to exclude ischemia, target heart rate not achieved, adverse side effects and test was terminated, discharge, further invasive testing such as coronary angiography) or require cardiology consultation for further evaluation.
Time frame: Within 5 days of stress imaging
Similarity in rates of cardiac catheterization and acute coronary syndrome events between UCA stress echocardiography and myocardial SPECT
* 30-day rates of cardiac catheterization between the two imaging modalities * Difference in the 30-day composite rate of acute coronary syndrome re-hospitalization, revascularization, and death between the two imaging modalities * Similarity in positive predictive value (PPV) of the two imaging modalities * Inter-rater reliability estimates for non-diagnostic echocardiogram studies
Time frame: by 30 +/- 7 days post-discharge
Shorter length of stay and lower cost of inpatient hospital care for UCA stress echocardiography than for myocardial SPECT
* Length of inpatient hospital stay of UCA stress echocardiography versus myocardial SPECT * Difference in time-to-cardiac catheterization beginning from time of admission * Differences in time-to-stress test completion beginning from time of admission30-day hospital costs of UCA stress echocardiography versus myocardial SPECT
Time frame: 30 day assesment
Greater physician satisfaction when using UCA stress echocardiography than for myocardial SPECT
•Physician satisfaction as assessed on questionnaire with UCA stress echocardiography versus myocardial SPECT. Physician(s) will be the provider(s) who supervised patient care during inpatient hospital stay.
Time frame: 5 days
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.