Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT01572220

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

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.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Denver Health Medical Center

Denver, Colorado, 80204, United States

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

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.

Treatment and study plan

UCA stress echocardiography or myocardial SPECT

Other

Comparative Effectiveness of cardiac stress imaging modalities

Primary outcomes

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

    Time frame: Within 5 days of stress imaging

    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 outcomes

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

    Time frame: by 30 +/- 7 days post-discharge

    • 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
  2. Shorter length of stay and lower cost of inpatient hospital care for UCA stress echocardiography than for myocardial SPECT

    Time frame: 30 day assesment

    • 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
  3. Greater physician satisfaction when using UCA stress echocardiography than for myocardial SPECT

    Time frame: 5 days

    •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.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Denver Health and Hospital Authority

Other

Collaborators

  • General Electric

Registry information

Acronym: SECURE

Important dates

Study start
2012
Primary completion
2014
Study completion
2017
First posted
Apr 6, 2012
Registry last updated
Dec 11, 2017

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.