Stress Echo Ultrasound Contrast in an Urban Safety Net Hospital to Refine Ischemia Evaluation (SECURE)
- Full Text View
- Tabular View
- No Study Results Posted
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
Purpose
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.
| Condition | Intervention |
|---|---|
|
Chest Pain Symptomatic Ischemic Equivalent |
Other: UCA stress echocardiography or myocardial SPECT |
| Study Type: | Interventional |
| Study Design: | Allocation: Randomized Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment Masking: Open Label Primary Purpose: Diagnostic |
| Official Title: | Stress Echo Ultrasound Contrast in an Urban Safety Net Hospital to Refine Ischemia Evaluation |
- Rate of non-diagnostic tests between ultrasound contrast enhanced stress echocardiography and myocardial SPECT [ Time Frame: Within 5 days of stress imaging ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]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.
- Similarity in rates of cardiac catheterization and acute coronary syndrome events between UCA stress echocardiography and myocardial SPECT [ Time Frame: by 30 +/- 7 days post-discharge ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- 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
- Shorter length of stay and lower cost of inpatient hospital care for UCA stress echocardiography than for myocardial SPECT [ Time Frame: 30 day assesment ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- 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
- Greater physician satisfaction when using UCA stress echocardiography than for myocardial SPECT [ Time Frame: 5 days ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]•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.
| Estimated Enrollment: | 200 |
| Study Start Date: | April 2012 |
| Estimated Study Completion Date: | May 2014 |
| Estimated Primary Completion Date: | April 2014 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure) |
| Arms | Assigned Interventions |
|---|---|
|
stress echocardiography
Comparative effectiveness
|
Other: UCA stress echocardiography or myocardial SPECT
Comparative Effectiveness of cardiac stress imaging modalities
|
|
Myocardial SPECT
CER
|
Other: UCA stress echocardiography or myocardial SPECT
Comparative Effectiveness of cardiac stress imaging modalities
|
Eligibility| Ages Eligible for Study: | 18 Years and older |
| Genders Eligible for Study: | Both |
| Accepts Healthy Volunteers: | No |
Inclusion Criteria:
Patients must meet all of the following inclusion criteria to be eligible for participation in this study:
- Males or females aged ≥ 18 years
- Evaluated for symptoms of chest discomfort or ischemic equivalent
Clinical indication for stress imaging, defined as one of the following clinical risk estimates for CAD based upon the Diamond and Forrester classification7:
- Intermediate pretest probability of CAD and electrocardiogram (ECG) is clinically interpretable and patient is able to exercise
- Intermediate pretest probability of CAD and ECG is clinically interpretable or patient is unable to exercise
- High pretest probability of CAD regardless of ECG interpretability and ability to exercise
- Willing and able to provide written informed consent to participate in this study
- Agrees to remain under observation (e.g., inpatient or observational status) until all study procedures from the hospital stay are completed, and to complete a 30-day follow up call
Exclusion Criteria:
Patients who meet any of the following exclusion criteria are not to be enrolled in this study:
Documented medical history or discovery during screening and/or admission of any of the following:
- Severe aortic or mitral stenosis
- Significant resting left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (velocity > 3 cm/s)
- Mobile left ventricular apical thrombus
- Acute pericarditis or pericardial tamponade
- Ascending or thoracic aortic aneurysm that is not stable or meets surgical criteria
- Acute decompensated congestive heart failure
- Established severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction < 35%)
- Definite acute coronary syndrome (e.g., unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction) as confirmed by elevated Troponin I (>0.6 ng/L) on two successive measurements or ECG changes diagnostic for unstable angina (e.g. localized ST changes) in conjunction with clinical appraisal
Any of the following other abnormalities on the ECG at screening:
- Paced ventricular rhythm or complete left bundle branch block
- Uncontrolled arrhythmias defined by frequent premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) > 10/minute, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, or atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response
- 2nd or 3rd degree heart block
- Uncontrolled hypertension defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 200 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 110 mmHg at screening
- Hemoglobin (Hb) < 7.5 mg/dL at screening or within 3 months prior to screening
- Potassium < 3.0 mmol/L or > 5.5 mmol/L or severe electrolyte abnormality at screening that, in the opinion of the supervising physician or Investigator, makes stress testing unsafe
- Females who are pregnant or nursing
- Known intolerance to any of the study stress agents (dipyridamole, dobutamine) or study cardiac imaging agents (Optison, Cardiolite)
- Weight ≥ 350lbs
- Any physical or psychological condition that, in the opinion of the Investigator, may adversely affect the safety of the patient if enrolled in this trial.
Contacts and Locations| Contact: Tiffany Bendelow, MPH | 303-436-5410 | Tiffany.Bendelow@dhha.org |
| United States, Colorado | |
| Denver Health Medical Center | Recruiting |
| Denver, Colorado, United States, 80204 | |
| Contact: Tiffany Bendelow, MPH 303-436-5410 Tiffany.Bendelow@dhha.org | |
| Principal Investigator: Mori Krantz, MD | |
| Sub-Investigator: Whitney Juselius, MD | |
| Sub-Investigator: Gerard Salame, MD | |
| Sub-Investigator: Carlin Long, MD | |
| Sub-Investigator: Marisha Burden, MD | |
| Principal Investigator: | Mori Krantz, MD FACC FACP | Denver Health Medical Center |
More Information
Additional Information:
Publications:
| Responsible Party: | Mori Krantz, Principal Investigator, Cardiologist, MD FACC FACP, Denver Health and Hospital Authority |
| ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: | NCT01572220 History of Changes |
| Other Study ID Numbers: | 12-0009 |
| Study First Received: | April 3, 2012 |
| Last Updated: | July 9, 2012 |
| Health Authority: | United States: Institutional Review Board |
Keywords provided by Denver Health and Hospital Authority:
|
Hospitalized patients |
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
|
Chest Pain Ischemia Pain Signs and Symptoms Pathologic Processes |
ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on May 19, 2013