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.a3098
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a3098
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
In a cohort of patients considered (and proved) to be at high risk of angina, exercise electrocardiography (ECG) had a sensitivity of only 53% for identifying those who would have an acute coronary event in the next 2.5 years.1
At first sight this seems quite low. The American Heart Association guidelines on exercise ECG testing quote a sensitivity and specificity of 68% and 77% for detecting significant coronary disease at angiography. This figure is based on a meta-analysis of 24 000 patients.
However, not all patients had angiography in most of the studies in the meta-analysis. Far more patients with positive results on exercise ECG have angiography than do those with negative results. This artificially raises the sensitivity and depresses the specificity. When the gold standard is clinically significant coronary artery disease at angiography, it is clearly necessary for all patients to have both exercise ECG and angiography. When Froelicher
Kevin Barraclough, general practitioner1
1 Painswick GL6 6TY
k.barraclough@btinternet.com
Read all Rapid Responses