English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

83–87%) with a specificity of 77% (95% CI, 74–80%). Nuclear imaging had a similar sensitivity of 87% (95% CI, 86–88%) but a reduced specificity of 64% (95% CI, 60–68%). 5,6 However, perfusion scintigraphy has several advantages over echocardiography; it is more sensitive for the detection of single-vessel disease and can quantify the extent of ischaemia more reproducible. In applying a stress test, it is mandatory for clinicians to consider the pre-test likelihood of the presence of coronary artery disease. This likelihood, or in Baysian terms, the prior probability, should then be revised by the applied test into a post-test probability. In patients at low risk, a normal test should rule out the presence of coronary artery disease, whereas an abnormal test should identify those in whom additional, more expensive testing is indicated. In contrast, in patients with an increased likelihood of coronary artery disease, the test should indicate the location and extent of the disease, which will guide the clinician to additional medical or interventional therapy. This strategy may overcome arguments against early testing in intermediate-risk patients, as inappropriate use of more expensive tests, as well as the possible introduction of complications, can be avoided. In order to compare imaging modalities, echocardiography and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, in intermediate-risk patients, a cost effectiveness analysis, including all costs generated by additional (inappropriate) tests should be taken into account. The present study by Shaw et al. 7 evaluated the optimal diagnostic test for intermediate-risk patients using cost effectiveness analysis. Using this concept, all downstream costs, including diagnostic angiography and coronary revascularization, are compared between the two tests in relation to the number of life-saved years. In a prospectively collected group of 9.521 intermediate-risk patients with stable angina, both exercise echocardiography and nuclear imaging are highly effective in long-term risk stratification. The population studied has an annual risk of cardiac death or non-fatal myocardial infarction of 1–3%. Two groups of patients, matched for risk factors, controlled for referral bias, and capable of exercising were compared for total cardiovascular costs throughout the follow-up. The risk-adjusted 3-year death and myocardial infarction, corrected for the presence and extent of ischaemia, were similar for both groups.

Selecting optimal non-invasive cardiac imaging stress test in intermediate-risk patients using cost effectiveness analysis