Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 24 December 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a3097
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a3097
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
How might exercise electrocardiography (ECG) fare in the sort of technology appraisal to which more modern technologies have been subjected? Although it is widely available and comparatively cheap, its diagnostic power is limited and its incremental prognostic power over clinical assessment is poor.1 2
In contrast, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) found myocardial perfusion scintigraphy to be both effective and cost effective in assessing patients presenting with possible stable angina.3 Clinical and modelling studies have shown that a strategy that omits exercise ECG and goes straight to myocardial perfusion scintigraphy is cost effective, particularly in the intermediate likelihood group of patients who are commonly seen in rapid access chest pain clinics.4 Similarly, in the lower likelihood group, cost effective practice is to follow initial exercise ECG with myocardial perfusion scintigraphy if further investigation is required.
It is therefore understandable but not entirely evidence based to conclude that
S Richard Underwood, professor of cardiac imaging1
1 Imperial College London, Royal Brompton Hospital, London SW3 6MP
srunderwood@imperial.ac.uk