search
Back to results

Stress Echo Ultrasound Contrast in an Urban Safety Net Hospital to Refine Ischemia Evaluation (SECURE)

Primary Purpose

Chest Pain, Symptomatic Ischemic Equivalent

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
UCA stress echocardiography or myocardial SPECT
Sponsored by
Denver Health and Hospital Authority
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional diagnostic trial for Chest Pain focused on measuring Hospitalized patients

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients must meet all of the following inclusion criteria to be eligible for participation in this study:

    1. Males or females aged ≥ 18 years
    2. Evaluated for symptoms of chest discomfort or ischemic equivalent
    3. 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
    4. Willing and able to provide written informed consent to participate in this study
    5. 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:

    1. 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%)
    2. 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
    3. 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
    4. Uncontrolled hypertension defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 200 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 110 mmHg at screening
    5. Hemoglobin (Hb) < 7.5 mg/dL at screening or within 3 months prior to screening
    6. 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
    7. Females who are pregnant or nursing
    8. Known intolerance to any of the study stress agents (dipyridamole, dobutamine) or study cardiac imaging agents (Optison, Cardiolite)
    9. Weight ≥ 350lbs
    10. 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.

Sites / Locations

  • Denver Health Medical Center

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Other

Other

Arm Label

stress echocardiography

Myocardial SPECT

Arm Description

Comparative effectiveness

CER

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Rate of non-diagnostic tests between ultrasound contrast enhanced stress echocardiography and myocardial SPECT
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.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Similarity in rates of cardiac catheterization and acute coronary syndrome events between UCA stress echocardiography and myocardial SPECT
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
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
•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.

Full Information

First Posted
April 3, 2012
Last Updated
December 7, 2017
Sponsor
Denver Health and Hospital Authority
Collaborators
General Electric
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT01572220
Brief Title
Stress Echo Ultrasound Contrast in an Urban Safety Net Hospital to Refine Ischemia Evaluation
Acronym
SECURE
Official Title
Stress Echo Ultrasound Contrast in an Urban Safety Net Hospital to Refine Ischemia Evaluation
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
December 2017
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
April 2012 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
August 2014 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
October 2017 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Denver Health and Hospital Authority
Collaborators
General Electric

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
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.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Chest Pain, Symptomatic Ischemic Equivalent
Keywords
Hospitalized patients

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Diagnostic
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
240 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
stress echocardiography
Arm Type
Other
Arm Description
Comparative effectiveness
Arm Title
Myocardial SPECT
Arm Type
Other
Arm Description
CER
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
UCA stress echocardiography or myocardial SPECT
Intervention Description
Comparative Effectiveness of cardiac stress imaging modalities
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Rate of non-diagnostic tests between ultrasound contrast enhanced stress echocardiography and myocardial SPECT
Description
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.
Time Frame
Within 5 days of stress imaging
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Similarity in rates of cardiac catheterization and acute coronary syndrome events between UCA stress echocardiography and myocardial SPECT
Description
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
Time Frame
by 30 +/- 7 days post-discharge
Title
Shorter length of stay and lower cost of inpatient hospital care for UCA stress echocardiography than for myocardial SPECT
Description
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
Time Frame
30 day assesment
Title
Greater physician satisfaction when using UCA stress echocardiography than for myocardial SPECT
Description
•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.
Time Frame
5 days

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
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.
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Mori Krantz, MD FACC FACP
Organizational Affiliation
Denver Health Medical Center
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Denver Health Medical Center
City
Denver
State/Province
Colorado
ZIP/Postal Code
80204
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Citations:
PubMed Identifier
10357690
Citation
Garber AM, Solomon NA. Cost-effectiveness of alternative test strategies for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 1999 May 4;130(9):719-28. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-130-9-199905040-00003.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
20008689
Citation
Berrington de Gonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, Bhargavan M, Lewis R, Mettler F, Land C. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med. 2009 Dec 14;169(22):2071-7. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.440.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
19710483
Citation
Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Ross JS, Chen J, Ting HH, Shah ND, Nasir K, Einstein AJ, Nallamothu BK. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 27;361(9):849-57. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0901249.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
8682117
Citation
Kisacik HL, Ozdemir K, Altinyay E, Oguzhan A, Kural T, Kir M, Kutuk E, Goksel S. Comparison of exercise stress testing with simultaneous dobutamine stress echocardiography and technetium-99m isonitrile single-photon emission computerized tomography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 1996 Jan;17(1):113-9. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a014669.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
440357
Citation
Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1979 Jun 14;300(24):1350-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197906143002402.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
29768319
Citation
Salame G, Juselius WE, Burden M, Long CS, Bendelow T, Beaty B, Masoudi FA, Krantz MJ. Contrast-Enhanced Stress Echocardiography and Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Patients Hospitalized With Chest Pain: A Randomized Study. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2018 Jun;17(2):98-104. doi: 10.1097/HPC.0000000000000141.
Results Reference
derived

Learn more about this trial

Stress Echo Ultrasound Contrast in an Urban Safety Net Hospital to Refine Ischemia Evaluation

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs