Stress Tests Don't Catch All Heart Disease

Each year hundreds of thousands of Americans get on a treadmill to try to determine whether their hearts are healthy.

Why, then, do we hear about people whose results on the test are normal and yet they die shortly after of a heart attack?

The most prominent, of course, was Tim Russert, the NBC journalist who died earlier this year six weeks after getting normal results on such a test.

Dr. Todd D. Miller, a cardiologist and co-director of the Mayo Clinic's Nuclear Cardiology Laboratory in Rochester, Minn., elaborated on his recently published assessment of the test's ability to predict the presence of life-threatening cardiac problems.

The test is meant to be used "almost exclusively" for people who have symptoms of heart disease, Dr. Miller emphasized.

"But in the real world," he said, "it is often used as a screening test for people without symptoms who are worried about their risk. The accuracy of the test depends on whom it is used. It is most accurate among populations with a high prevalence of coronary disease. But in most people without symptoms, the prevalence of disease is so low that the accuracy of the test is low, too."

Limitations and advantages. In fact, this test is unable to detect the kind of problem that caused Russert's death -- a plaque within the wall of a coronary artery that ruptured, resulting in a clot that set off a rapidly fatal heart rhythm abnormality. If not for the rhythm disturbance, Russert would have had a far greater chance of surviving, said Dr. Miller, who was not one of his physicians.

Russert's treadmill test may have put him in the low-risk category, Dr. Miller said, "but that doesn't mean no risk."

"Maybe 3 patients in 1,000 with a low-risk test will die from heart disease within a year," he said. "Among those deemed at high risk, more than 3 patients in 100 would die within a year."

Furthermore, when the stress test is used for people who are at low risk for heart disease, an abnormal finding is most often a false positive that prompts further testing that is far more costly, Dr. Miller said.

The stress test's main advantages are its rapidity and low cost - - one-fifth to one-quarter the cost of more definitive and often more time-consuming tests like a nuclear stress test, CT coronary angiogram or standard angiogram.

But the test has no value unless its findings are interpreted in the context of a person's other risk factors for heart disease: age, sex and heart disease symptoms, as well as smoking, being overweight, hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes and family history.

Three main arteries feed the heart, and the ability of a stress test to pick up narrowing of an artery is better if more than one artery is clogged, Dr. Miller said.

The treadmill test seeks to answer two questions: "Does the patient have coronary artery disease, and is he or she likely to die or suffer a coronary event soon?" Dr. Miller wrote in the Cleveland Clinic journal. But at best it can provide only an estimate of someone's risk of having a heart attack or dying of heart disease within a given period of time.

Interpreting the results. During a treadmill test, patients are hooked up to an electrocardiogram machine (often abbreviated EKG) that records the workings of the heart as the duration, speed and difficulty of the exercise increase.

Measurements taken during and immediately after the workout are indicators of cardiovascular fitness: how long the person can continue as the treadmill's speed and incline gradually increase; whether blood pressure drops instead of rising; whether the heart rate increases to an age-appropriate level and how fast it recovers when the test ends.

Doctors used to rely mainly on an EKG finding called ST-segment depression to indicate heart trouble. But scores of studies have zeroed in on other, more reliable findings. Exercise duration has the strongest prognostic value, Dr. Miller said. "The longer the patient can keep going on the treadmill, the less likely he or she is to die soon of coronary artery disease -- or of any cause," he wrote.

Even people who have three diseased coronary arteries can be expected to survive four years or more if they can stay on the treadmill for 12 or more minutes, a study in the 1980s showed.

But duration on the treadmill may be limited by lack of physical fitness, back problems or other unrelated disorders, leading to other, more expensive evaluations.

Measurements and Diagnoses. Duration on a treadmill is a measure of exercise capacity -- the workload the body can achieve expressed as metabolic equivalents, or METs, a multiple of the amount of oxygen the body uses at rest. The average middle-age man can reach 10 to 12 METs, about 2 more than the average woman, Dr. Miller said.

Blood pressure that is lower during the treadmill exercise than when the person is standing at rest often indicates severe coronary disease -- a heart unable to meet the demand -- and has been linked to a threefold increase in the risk of a cardiac event within two years, a study of 2,036 patients showed.

A normal heart beats faster during exercise and slows as soon as exercise stops. Failure of the heart rate to increase as expected, a condition called chronotropic incompetence, is associated with an increased risk of death from heart disease, a study by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation showed. The risk of death within six years is also doubled if the person's heart rate fails to fall quickly when the treadmill stops.

Finally, various heart rhythm abnormalities may occur during the test. Most are benign, but a rhythm disturbance called ventricular ectopy is linked to a somewhat raised death rate over the next five years.

The bottom line? A stress test result is only one factor in estimating a person's risk of dying soon of heart disease. And, Dr. Miller added, "We'd all be a lot better off if we became more active."

THE New York Times / Jez Burrows

Originally published by JANE E BRODY, The New York Times.

(c) 2008 Providence Journal. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.

Source: YellowBrix, Providence Journal
Rodger Jacobs's picture
This is of great concern to me. I am a 49-year old male with a host of medical issues that have been plaguing me for years. I have been undergoing treatment for 7 years for severe psoriasis and psoriatic aropathy. I also have hypertension (have been on meds since the age of 35), gout, GERD, and bi-polar disorder. My physician recently took an interest in my cardio-vascular system due to my long history of smoking. He immediately pronounced that I am in the early stages of COPD and ordered an ultra-sound of my heart, which revealed that my aortic valve is "mildly sclerotic" and that there is mild calcification. My heart, he said, is operating at 63%, which he said was "very good." Before he left the exam room to let the nurse conduct two EKGs he told me that I must make an appointment for a stress test. Cut to the chase: the nurse does the EKG's and the doc is ecstatic by the results. My heart, he says, and I quote, "shows no sign of damage in the past, no indication that you have ever had a heart attack or are about to have one in the future." But ... yeah, he insists, get that stress test. First of all, my many medical issues (plaque psoriasis on my feet, for example) will make the test very difficult for me to endure. Secondly, I walk two miles a day, every day. When I accelerate my pace, my heart rate increases, when I slow down, my heart rate returns to normal, just as the article states it should. I'm about to take a pass on the stress test but how do I do it without making my GP believe that he has an uncooperative patient on his hands?
morris53's picture
I'm living proof that 'stress test' treadmills are full of bull. I am a sixteen year survivor of a double bypass in May of 1992. I also have exercise induced asthma so the stress test is very aggravating to my body. My former cardiologist retired five years ago after going into the vitamin business after telling me in 1990 that vitamins weren't worth a damn. My heart surgeon died last year of small cell lung cancer. I have had three Thallium EKG's and they suck the most of all. My last one six years ago showed wide open blood vessels so therefore diet isn't all it's cracked up to be in control of heart disease. I have a family history of high cholestrol and triglycerides. Taking Crestor every other day, Tricor daily and Zetia every day keeps my total cholestrol between 110 and 120 and my triglycerides below 300. In the past my triglycerides have been as high as 1600. So, go figure. I have had the same personal physician for over twenty years and we communicate on the same level. Over thirty years ago I was a Hospital Corpsman First Class during the Vietnam War and after two tours in the war zone, I did a year of shore duty and got out for good. The training I received in the US Navy prepared me for the rest of my life. I questioned everything and am much better off for doing so at the time. I've also had type 2 diabetes (or so they tell me) for the past sixteen years. For me the normal range of bloos sugar is 180-240 becuase the universal 80-120 normal range makes me sick. I use 160 units of Lantus insulin and 50 units of Humalog insulin daily and eat whatever I want. I have always eaten healthy foods so I have very few food issues except for the fact that any type of grain whether process or whole grain is like poison for a person's blood sugar. I try to eat 40% fats, 45% protein and 15% carbohydrate and I am 63 years old and in otherwise excellent health. I also suffer from sever spinal stenosis from woriking in a company office for 37 years. I retired last year and now do what I want when I want. AJ Cardaropoli, Jr Palmdale, CA 93551 morris53@msn.com
Ads by Google