ArticleEcho research and practice2018
Safety and efficacy of physiologist-led dobutamine stress echocardiography: experience from a tertiary cardiac centre
Article in Echo research and practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contemporary review of stress echocardiography workforce within the UK: an EVAREST/BSE NSTEP study.Echo research and practice · 2025Article
- Enhancing heart valve disease surveillance: a quality improvement project demonstrating cost-effective triaging and Clinical Scientist-led services to improve patient care.Echo research and practice · 2025Article
- Stress echocardiography in coronary artery disease: a practical guideline from the British Society of Echocardiography.Echo research and practice · 2019Article
- Safety and efficacy of physiologist-led dobutamine stress echocardiographyEcho research and practice · 2018Article
- A physiologist observing and reporting supra-pharmacologic dobutamine stress testing: can we trust them, and can we trust the results?Echo research and practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) services have traditionally been medically led. In some UK institutions, DSE lists are led by physiologists with medical support. In our tertiary cardiac centre at New Cross Hospital (NCH), the DSE service was established by a consultant echocardiographer. Following intensive training and assessment, the Trust approved drug administration by named senior cardiac physiologists. We believe this is the first report of a cardiac physiologist-managed DSE service, including physiologist drug administration. We have assessed the feasibility, safety and validity of this physiologist-led DSE service. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 333 patients undergoing stress echocardiogram for inducible reversible ischaemia, myocardial viability and valvular heart disease over 6 months. Patients’ case notes review after 18–24 months. Results: Overall, 92% of all cases (306) were performed by physiologists. In 300 studies, dobutamine was administered. The majority of the referrals were for coronary artery disease (CAD) assessment (281). In 235 cases, the study was uncomplicated. Sixty-seven patients developed dobutamine-related side effects. In 16 cases, complications led to early termination of the study. In two cases, urgent medical review was needed. Of the 281 studies for CAD assessment, 239 were negative for ischaemia, 28 were positive and 14 inconclusive. In 5 out of 28 cases with echocardiogram, evidence of inducible ischaemia, coronary angiography revealed unobstructed coronary arteries. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of this practice and provides potential for the expansion of the physiologists’ role and physiologist-led DSE services in other hospitals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.