Observational studyMedicine2019
Clinical outcomes of discordant exercise electrocardiographic and echocardiographic findings compared with concordant findings in patients with chest pain and no history of coronary artery disease: An observational study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate comparative clinical outcomes of discordant electrocardiographic (ECG) and echocardiographic (Echo) findings compared with concordant findings during treadmill exercise echocardiography in patients with chest pain and no history of coronary artery disease (CAD).A total of 1725 consecutive patients who underwent treadmill echocardiography with chest pain and no history of CAD were screened. The patients were classified into 4 groups: ECG-/Echo- (negative ECG and Echo), ECG+/Echo- (positive ECG and negative Echo), ECG-/Echo+, and ECG+/Echo+. Concomitant CAD was determined using coronary angiography or coronary computed tomography. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were defined as a composite of coronary revascularization, acute myocardial infarction, and death.MACEs were similar between ECG-/Echo- and ECG+/Echo- groups. Compared with ECG+/Echo- group, ECG-/Echo+ group had more MACEs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] adjusted by clinical risk factors [95% confidence interval {CI}], 3.57 [1.75-7.29], P < .001). Compared with ECG+/Echo+ group, ECG-/Echo+ group had lower prevalence of concomitant CAD and fewer MACEs (HR, 0.49 [0.29-0.81], P = .006).Positive exercise Echo alone during treadmill exercise echocardiography had worse clinical outcomes than positive ECG alone, and the latter had similar outcomes to both negative ECG and Echo. Positive exercise Echo alone also had better clinical outcomes than both positive ECG and Echo. Therefore, exercise Echo findings might be superior for predicting clinical outcomes compared with exercise ECG findings. Additional consideration of ECG findings on positive exercise Echo will also facilitate better prediction of clinical outcomes.
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.