Aim: The value of exercise electrocardiogram (ExECG) in symptomatic female patients with low to intermediate risk for significant coronary artery disease (CAD) has been under debate for many years, and nondiagnostic or even erroneous test results are frequently encountered. Cardiac-CT may be more appropriate to exclude CAD in women. This study compares the results of ExECGs with those of cardiac-CTs, performed within a time frame of 1 month in an all-comers female chest pain population.
Patients and methods: Five hundred fifty-one consecutive female patients from a patient registry were included. ExECGs were negative in 324 (59%), positive in 14 (3%), and nondiagnostic in 213 (39%) patients. CAD was revealed by cardiac-CT in 57% of the women with negative ExECG. No signs of CAD were present on cardiac-CT in 64% of the women with a positive ExECG. Cardiac-CT showed presence of CAD in 268/551 (49%) patients, of whom 56/268 (21%) was diagnosed with ≥50% stenosis. The ExECG of the latter group was negative in 26 (46%), inconclusive in 29 (52%), and positive in 1 (2%). Considering ≥50% stenosis at cardiac-CT as the reference, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of ExECG for the present population were 3.7%, 95.7%, 7.1%, and 91.7%, respectively. Similar diagnostic performance was calculated when considering ≥70% stenosis at cardiac-CT as the reference.
Conclusion: ExECG failed to detect CAD in more than half of this cohort and in almost half of women with >50% stenosis at cardiac-CT. Importantly, no CAD was detected by cardiac-CT in 64% of women with a positive ExECG. ExECG is therefore questionable as a diagnostic strategy in women with low-to-intermediate risk of CAD, although prospective studies are warranted to determine whether replacing ExECG by cardiac-CT provides better prognoses.
Keywords: CAD; CCTA; coronary artery disease; exercise ECG; women.