Sports Medicine

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 387–408

Assessing Patients with Possible Heart Disease Using Scores

  • Katerina Shetler
  • Arna Karlsdottir
  • Victor Froelicher
Current Opinion

Abstract

Multivariable analysis of clinical and exercise test data has the potential to become a useful tool for assisting in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease, assessing prognosis, and reducing the cost of evaluating patients with suspected coronary disease. Since general practitioners are functioning as gatekeepers and decide which patients must be referred to the cardiologist, they need to use the basic tools they have available (i.e. history, physical examination and the exercise test), in an optimal fashion. Scores derived from multivariable statistical techniques considering clinical and exercise data have demonstrated superior discriminating power compared with simple classification of the ST response. In addition, by stratifying patients as to probability of disease and prognosis, they provide a management strategy. While computers, as part of information management systems, can run complicated equations and derive these scores, physicians are reluctant to trust them. Thus, these scores have been represented as nomograms or simple additive tables so physicians are comfortable with their application. Their results have also been compared with physician judgment and found to estimate the presence of coronary disease and prognosis as well as expert cardiologists and often better than nonspecialists.

However, the discriminating power of specific variables from the medical history and exercise test remains unclear because of inadequate study design and differences in study populations. Should expired gases be substituted for estimated metabolic equivalents (METs)? Should ST/heart rate (HR) index be used instead of putting these measurements separately into the models? Should right-sided chest leads and HR in recovery be considered? There is a need for further evaluation of these routinely obtained variables to improve the accuracy of prediction algorithms especially in women. The portability and reliability of these equations must be demonstrated since access to specialised care must be safeguarded. Hopefully, sequential assessment of the clinical and exercise test data and application of the newer generation of multivariable equations can empower the clinician to assure the cardiac patient access to appropriate and cost-effective cardiological care.

References

  1. 1.
    Rosamond WD, Chambless LE, Folsom AR, et al. Trends in the incidence of myocardial infarction and in mortality due to coronary heart disease, 1987 to 1994. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 861–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reeder GS, Gersh BJ. Modern management of acute myocardial infarction. Curr Probl Cardiol 1996; 21: 590–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elveback LR, Connolly DC, Kurland LT. Coronary artery disease in residents of Rochester, Minnesota. II. Mortality, incidence, and survivorship, 1950–1975. Mayo Clin Proc 1981; 56: 665–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Philbrick JT, Horowitz RI, Feinstein AR. Methodological problems of exercise testing for coronary artery disease: groups, analysis and bias. Am J Cardiol 1989; 64: 1117–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reid M, Lachs M, Feinstein A. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. JAMA 1995; 274: 645–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guyatt GH. Readers’ guide for articles evaluating diagnostic tests: what ACP Journal Club does for you and what you must do yourself. ACP J Club 1991; 115: A-16Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morise A, Duval R. Comparison of three Bayesian methods to estimate posttest probability in patients undergoing exercise stress testing. Am J Cardiol 1989; 64: 1117–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gibbons R, Chatterjee K, Daley J, et al. ACC/AHA/ACP-ASIM Guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: executive summary and recommendations (committee on management of patients with chronic stable angina). Circulation 1999; 99: 2829–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ellestad MH, Savitz S, Bergdall D, et al. The false positive stress test: multivariate analysis of 215 subjects with hemodynamic, angiographic and clinical data. Am J Cardiol 1977; 40: 681–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibbons RJ, Balady GJ, Beasley JW, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for exercise testing: executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 30 (1); 260–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Froelicher VF, Lehmann KG, Thomas R, et al. The electrocardiographic exercise test in a population with reduced workup bias: diagnostic performance, computerized interpretation, and multivariable prediction. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study in Health Services #016 (QUEXTA) Study Group. Quantitative Exercise Testing and Angiography. Ann Intern Med 1998 Jun 15; 128 (12 Pt 1): 965–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yamada H, Do D, Morise A, et al. Review of studies utilizing multi-variable analysis of clinical and exercise test data to predict angiographic coronary artery disease. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1997; 39: 457–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kansal S, Roitman D, Bradley EL Jr, et al. Enhanced evaluation of treadmill tests by means of scoring based on multivariate analysis and its clinical application: a study of 608 patients. Am J Cardiol 1983 Dec 1; 52 (10): 1155–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fisher LD, Kennedy JW, Chaitman BR, et al. Diagnostic quantification of CASS (coronary artery surgery study) clinical and exercise test results in determining presence and extent of coronary artery disease: a multivariate approach. Circulation 1981; 63 (5): 987–1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hollenberg M, Budge WR, Wisneski JA, et al. Treadmill score quantifies electrocardiographic response to exercise and improves test accuracy and reproducibility. Circulation 1980 Feb; 61 (2): 276–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cohn K, Kamm B, Feteih N, et al. Use of treadmill score to quantify ischemic response and predict extent of coronary disease. Circulation 1979 Feb; 59 (2): 286–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berman JL, Wynne J, Cohn PF. A multivariate approach for interpreting treadmill exercise tests in coronary artery disease. Circulation 1978 Sep; 58 (3): 505–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG, et al. Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA 1997; 277 (6): 488–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Do D, Marcus R, Froelicher V, et al. Predicting severe angiographic coronary artery disease using computerization of clinical and exercise test data. Chest 1998; 114: 1437–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chatziioannou SN, Moore WH, Ford PV, et al. Prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with high exercise tolerance. Circulation 1999; 99: 867–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hachamovitch R, Berman D, Kiat H, et al. Exercise myocardial perfusion SPECT in patients without known coronary artery disease: incremental prognostic value and use in risk stratification. Circulation 1996; 93 (5): 905–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kuntz KM, Fleischmann KE, Hunink M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for patients with chest pain. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130 (9): 709–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garber AM, Solomon NA. Cost-effectiveness of alternative test strategies for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130 (9): 719–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Knottnerus A. Diagnostic prediction rules: principles, requirements, and pitfalls. Prim Care 1995; 22 (2): 341–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kotler TS, Diamond GA. Exercise Thallium-201 Scintigraphy in the diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113: 684–702PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Dombal FT, Staniland JR, Clamp SE. Geographical variation in disease presentation: does it constitute a problem and can informative science help? Med Decis Making 1981; 1: 59–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Poses RM, Cebul RD, Collins M, et al. The importance of disease prevalence in transporting clinical prediction rules. Ann Intern Med 1986; 105: 586–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wijesinha A, Begg CB, Funkenstein HH, et al. Methodology for the differential diagnosis of a complex data set: a case study using data from routine CT scan examinations. Med Decis Making 1983; 3: 133–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morise A, Haddad J, Beckner D. Development and validation of a clinical score to estimate the probability of coronary artery disease in men and women presenting with suspected coronary disease. Am J Med 1997; 102: 350–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morise A. Comparison of the Diamond-Forrester method and a new score to estimate the pretest probability of coronary disease before exercise testing. Am Heart J 1999; 138: 740–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morise AP, Dalal JN, Duval RD. Value of a simple measure of estrogen status for improving the diagnosis of CAD in women. Am J Med 1993; 94: 491–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chaitman BR, Bourassa MG, Davis K, et al. Angiographic prevalence of high-risk coronary artery disease in patient subsets (CASS). Circulation 1981; 64: 360–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Akosah KO, Gower E, Groon L, et al. Mild hypercholesterolemia and premature heart disease: do the national criteria underestimate disease risk? J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 35: 1178–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Kerry LL, et al. Localizing coronary artery obstructions with the exercise treadmill test. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106: 53–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Simonetti I, Rezai K, Rossen JD, et al. Physiological assessment of sensitivity of noninvasive testing for coronary artery disease. Circulation 1991; 83 Suppl. III: III-43-III-49Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rywik TM, Zink RC, Gittings NS, et al. Independent prognostic significance of ischemic ST-segment response limited to recovery from treadmill exercise in asymptomatic subjects. Circulation 1998; 97 (21): 2117–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Atwood E, Do D, Froelicher V, et al. Can computerization of the exercise test replace the cardiologist. Am Heart J 1998; 136: 543–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lauer MS, Francis GS, Okin PM, et al. Impaired chronotropic response to exercise stress testing as a predictor of mortality. JAMA 1999; 281 (6): 524–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Imai K, Sato H, Hori M, et al. Vagally mediated heart rate recovery after exercise is accelerated in athletes but blunted in patients with chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994; 24: 1529–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cole CR, Blackstone EH, Pashkow FJ, et al. Heart-rate recovery immediately after submaximal exercise as a predictor of mortality. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1351–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lachterman B, Lehmann KG, Neutel J, et al. Comparison of the ST/heart rate index to standard ST criteria for analysis of the exercise electrocardiogram. Circulation 1990; 82: 44–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fletcher GF, Flipse TR, Kligfield P, et al. Current status of ECG stress testing. Curr Probl Cardiol 1998; 23 (7): 353–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Morise AP. Accuracy of heart rate-adjusted ST segments in populations with and without posttest referral bias [see comments]. Am Heart J 1997; 134 (4): 647–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Okin PM, Roman MJ, Schwartz JE, et al. Relation of exercise induced myocardial ischemia to cardiac and carotid structure. Hypertension 1997; 30 (6): 1382–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Viik J, Lehtinen R, Malmivuo J. Detection of coronary artery disease using maximum value of ST/HR hysteresis over different number of leads. J Electrocardiol 1999; 32 Suppl.: 70–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Okin PM, Grandits G, Rautaharju PM, et al. Prognostic value of heart rate adjustment of exercise-induced ST segment depression in the multiple risk factor intervention trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996; 27 (6): 1437–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Okin PM, Anderson KM, Levy D, et al. Heart rate adjustment of exercise-induced ST segment depression. Improved risk stratification in the Framingham Offspring Study. Circulation 1991; 83 (3): 866–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ramamurthy G, Kerr JE, Harsha D, et al. The treadmill test where to stop and what does it mean? Chest 1999; 115 (4): 1166–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fletcher GF, Balady G, Froelicher VF, et al. Exercise standards: a statement for health professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation 1995; 91 (2): 580–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Roger VL, Jacobsen SJ, Pellikka PA, et al. Prognostic value of treadmill exercise testing: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Circulation 1998; 98 (25): 2836–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mark D, Hlatky M, Harrell F, et al. Exercise treadmill score for predicting prognosis in coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106: 793–800PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Detrano R, Bobbio M, Olson H, et al. Computer probability estimates of angiographic coronary artery disease: transportability and comparison with cardiologists’s estimates. Comput Biomed Res 1992; 25: 468–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Morise AP, Detrano R, Bobbio M, et al. Development and validation of a logistic regression — derived algorithm for estimating the incremental probability of coronary artery disease before and after exercise testing. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 20: 1187–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Do D, West J, Morise A, et al. A consensus approach to diagnosing coronary artery disease based on clinical and exercise test data. Chest 1997; 11 (6): 1742–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shiu P, Froelicher V. EXTRA: an expert system for exercise testing utilizing consensus to predict coronary disease. J Invasive Cardiol 1998; 2 (6): 21–6Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Raxwal V, Shelter K, Morise A, et al. Simple treadmill score to diagnose coronary disease. Chest. In pressGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hlatky MA, Califf RM, Harrell FE, et al. Clinical judgment and therapeutic decision making. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990; 15: 1–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Iscandrian AS, Ghods M, Helfeld H, et al. The treadmill exercise score revised: coronary arteriographic and thallium perfusion correlates. Am Heart J 1992; 124: 1581–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lauer MS, Blackstone EH, Young JB, et al. Cause of death in clinical research: time for a reassessment? J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34 (3): 618–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gibbons RJ, Hodge DO, Berman DS, et al. Long-term outcome of patients with intermediate-risk exercise electrocardiograms who do not have myocardial perfusion defects on radionuclide imaging. Circulation 1999; 100 (21): 2140–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Brechue W, Pollock M. Exercise training for coronary artery disease in the elderly. Clin Geriatr Med 1996; 12 (1): 207–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Froelicher VF, Myers J. Exercise and the heart. 4th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Saunders-Mosby, 1999Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mark DB, Shaw L, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Prognostic value of a treadmill exercise score in outpatients with suspected coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1991; 325 (12): 849–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Shaw LJ, Peterson ED, Shaw LK, et al. Use of a prognostic treadmill score in identifying diagnostic coronary disease subgroups. Circulation 1998 Oct 20; 98 (16): 1622–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Morrow K, Morris C, Froelicher V, et al. Prediction of cardiovascular death in men undergoing noninvasive evaluation for coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 689–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Froelicher V, Morow K, Brown M, et al. Prediction of atherosclerotic cardiovascular death in men using a prognostic score. Am J Cardiol 1994; 73: 133–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Prakash M, Myers J, Froelicher VF, et al. Clinical and exercise test predictors of all-cause mortality: results from over 6,000 consecutive referred male patients. Chest. In pressGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Cole CR, Blackstone EH, Pashkow FJ, et al. Heart-rate recovery immediately after exercise as a predictor of mortality. N Engl J Med 1999; 341 (18): 1351–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Nishime EO, Cole CR, Blackstone EH, et al. Heart rate recovery and treadmill exercise score as predictors of mortality in patients referred for exercise ECG. JAMA 2000; 284 (11): 1392–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Shelter K, Marcus R, Vora S, et al. Heart rate recovery: validation and methodological issues. J Am Coll Cardiol. In pressGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Cole CR, Foody JM, Blackstone EH, et al. Heart rate recovery after submaximal exercise testing as a predictor of mortality in a cardiovascularly healthy cohort. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132 (7): 552–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Alexander K, Shaw L, Delong E, et al. Value of exercise treadmill testing in women. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32 (6): 1657–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Fearon W, Lee D, Froelicher V. The effect of resting ST segment depression on the diagnostic characteristics of the exercise treadmill test. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 35: 1206–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kwok JM, Miller TD, Christian TF, et al. Prognostic value of a treadmill exercise score in symptomatic patients with nonspecific ST-T abnormalities on resting ECG. JAMA; 1999: 282 (11): 1047–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Goraya T, Jacobsen S, Pellikka P, et al. Prognostic value of treadmill exercise testing in elderly persons. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 862–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Consensus recommendations for the management of chronic heart failure. On behalf of the membership of the advisory council to improve outcomes nationwide in heart failure. Am J Cardiol 1999; 83 (2A): 1A-38AGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Myers J, Gullestad L, Vagelos R, et al. Clinical, hemodynamic, and cardiopulmonary exercise test determinants of survival in patients referred for evaluation of heart failure. Ann Intern Med 1998; 129 (4): 286–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Davies LC, Francis DP, Piepoli M, et al. Chronic heart failure in the elderly: value of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in risk stratification. Heart 2000; 83 (2): 147–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Swets JA, Dawes RM, Monahan J. Better Decisions through Science. Sci Am 2000 Oct; 82–7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katerina Shetler
    • 1
  • Arna Karlsdottir
    • 1
  • Victor Froelicher
    • 1
  1. 1.Cardiology Division (111C)Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Healthcare SystemPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations