Biomedical subjects

Anthony Morise

Publications and source records attributed to Anthony Morise.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2007

A pretest prognostic score to assess patients undergoing exercise or pharmacological stress testing.

OBJECTIVE: A previously developed pretest score was validated to stratify patients presenting for exercise testing with suspected coronary disease according to the presence of angiographic coronary disease. Our goal was to determine how well this pretest score risk stratified patients undergoing pharmacological and exercise stress tests concerning prognostic endpoints. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: University hospital stress laboratory. PATIENTS: 7452 unselected ambulatory patients with symptoms of suspected coronary disease undergoing stress testing between 1995 and 2004. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: All-cause death, cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction. RESULTS: The rate of all-cause death was 5.5% (CI 5.0 to 6.1) with 4.3 (SD 2.4) years of follow-up (Exercise 2.8% (CI 2.3 to 3.2) v Pharmacological group 11.9% (CI 10.5 to 13.3); p<0.001). The rate of cardiac death/myocardial infarction was 2.6% (CI 2.2 to 3.0) (Exercise 1.4% (CI 1.1 to 1.8) v Pharmacological group 5.3% (CI 4.3 to 6.2); p<0.001). In both groups, stratification by pretest score was significant for all-cause death and the combined endpoint. However, stratification was more effective in the pharmacological group using the combined endpoint rather than all-cause death. Pharmacological stress patients in intermediate and high risk groups were at higher risk than their respective exercise test cohorts. Referral for pharmacological stress testing was found to be an independent predictor of time to death (2.7 (CI 2.0 to 3.6); p<0.001). CONCLUSION: A pretest score previously validated to stratify according to angiographic outcomes, effectively risk stratified pharmacological and exercise stress patients according to the combined endpoint of cardiac death/myocardial infarction.

Adrenergic beta-Agonists↗

PubMed2005

Can we reliably predict long-term mortality after exercise testing? An external validation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to derive and externally validate a mortality prediction rule for patients undergoing exercise testing. BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of exercise testing is increasingly appreciated. However, global prognosis estimates ideally should account for numerous routinely obtained variables, including demographics, risk factors, resting electrocardiogram, and multiple exercise test measures. METHODS: A prediction rule was derived by parametric hazards modeling on a derivation set of 46047 Cleveland Clinic patients (age 55 +/- 11 years, 67% male) who had no history of heart failure, valve disease, or atrial fibrillation. Twenty-two variables covering demographics, risk factors, exercise hemodynamics, and electrocardiogram findings at rest and during exercise were considered. The resulting model included 16 variables and was tested on 4981 patients (age 50 +/- 12 years, 55% male) who underwent exercise testing at West Virginia University. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort there were 3173 deaths during a mean of 7 years of follow-up, whereas in the validation cohort there were 180 deaths during a mean of 5 years of follow-up. Comparisons of predicted and observed death rates showed very good agreement among all patients across all spectrums of risk, as well as among prespecified high-risk subgroups. Model discrimination was also good, with c statistic of c = 0.79 in the derivation group and c = 0.81 in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: We have externally validated a mortality prediction rule for patients undergoing exercise testing and confirmed its accuracy among a wide spectrum of patients.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

What percent luminal stenosis should be used to define angiographic coronary artery disease for noninvasive test evaluation?

BACKGROUND: There has been controversy over what is the best angiographic luminal dimension criterion associated with ischemia for evaluating diagnostic tests. If one assumes that ST-segment depression or scores are indicators of ischemia, then whatever angiographic criteria best discriminates those with ischemic and nonischemic responses would be the best angiographic marker for ischemia. To study this, we calculated the area under the ROC curves for ST depression and scores at different angiographic cut-points in order to determine the best angiographic cut-point for defining ischemia-producing coronary disease. METHODS: Twelve hundred and seventy-six consecutive males without prior MI with a mean age of 59 +/- 11 years who had undergone exercise testing and coronary angiography were analyzed in this study. We calculated the number of patients of this population that would be considered to have coronary artery disease at different cut-points for angiographic luminal stenosis. For example, 59% of the patients had significant CAD when disease was defined as 50% or greater coronary lumen stenosis of any coronary vessel while 49% of the patients had significant CAD when disease was defined as 70% or greater coronary lumen stenosis. Cut-points were considered between 40 to 100% coronary lumen stenosis. ROC analysis was then performed comparing ST depression and treadmill scores at each of these cut-points. RESULTS: The cut-point for coronary lumen stenosis that returned the highest AUC for ST depression and scores was between 70 and 80% coronary luminal stenosis. However, the difference between the 50% and 75% luminal stenosis criteria was minimal. CONCLUSION: It appears that the best cut-point for defining significant angiographic disease when evaluating diagnostic tests of ischemia is 75% or greater coronary luminal stenosis.

Aged↗