Scientist-led Exercise Testing Is Safe With Diagnostic Interpretation Equivalent to a Cardiologist.

Abstract

The implementation of nonphysician-led exercise stress testing (EST) has increased over the last 30 years, with endorsement by many cardiovascular societies around the world. The comparable safety of nonphysician-led EST to physician-led studies has been demonstrated, with some studies also showing agreement in diagnostic preliminary interpretations. The study aim was to firstly confirm the safety of nonphysician-led EST in a large cohort and secondly compare the interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy of cardiac scientist and junior medical officer (JMO)-led EST reports to cardiology consultant overreads. All ESTs performed between 1/7/2010 and 30/6/2013 were included in the study for JMO led tests (n = 1332). ESTs performed for the investigation of coronary artery disease between 1/7/2013 and 30/6/2016 were included for scientist-led testing (n = 1904). There was one adverse event, an ST segment myocardial infarction during the recovery phase of a JMO-led EST. Interobserver agreement was superior between the cardiologist and the scientist compared with the cardiologist and the JMO (P < 0.0001). Sensitivity for JMO-led tests differed from the cardiologist overread (86.96% vs. 96.77%, P = 0.03). There were no other significant differences between the cardiologist overread and the JMO- or scientist-led interpretation. Scientist-led EST is safe in intermediate risk patients and their preliminary reports are equally diagnostic as cardiologist overreads. While JMO-led ESTs are just as safe, the preliminary reports differ significantly from cardiologist overread particularly with respect to sensitivity.