Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care
Volume 37, Issue 2 , Pages 144-152, March 2008

Interpretation of exercise stress test recordings: Concordance between nurse practitioner and cardiologist

  • Evelyn Maier, RN, MN

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cardiology, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Canada
  • ,
  • Louise Jensen, RN, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Louise Jensen, RN, PhD, University of Alberta, Faculty of Nursing, 4-112 D Clinical Sciences Building, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2G3.
  • ,
  • Brian Sonnenberg, MD, FRCP(C)

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cardiology, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Canada
  • ,
  • Stephen Archer, MD, FRCP(C)

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cardiology, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Canada

Aim

Cardiology nurse practitioners (NPs) conduct exercise stress tests (ESTs) for diagnosis of cardiac disease. The diagnostic concordance of NPs to cardiologists has not been assessed. The hypothesis was that an NP is as reliable as a cardiologist in determining ST-segment depression, detecting arrhythmias, and making a diagnostic assessment.

Methods

An NP and two cardiologists (C1 and C2) were provided with 100 consecutive, anonymized ESTs, consisting of three 10-second, 12-lead tracings obtained at baseline, peak-exercise, and recovery. Interpretation was based on baseline rhythm, baseline and maximal exercise ST levels, arrhythmias, and global diagnosis (positive, negative, or inconclusive for ischemia). Raters used uniform criteria to interpret ESTs and were blinded to prior EST interpretation and computerized ST-segment analysis.

Results

There was similar concordance between the NP and cardiologists as between the cardiologists, measured by Kappa coefficients (rhythm: NP vs. C1 = .92, NP vs. C2 = .84, C1 vs. C2 = .84; arrhythmias: NP vs. C1 = .77, NP vs. C2 = .73, C1 vs. C2 = .75; EST diagnosis: NP vs. C1 = .75, NP vs. C2 = .73, C1 vs. C2 = .75). Pearson correlations demonstrated concordance for baseline ST levels (NP vs. C1 = .86, NP vs. C2 = .86, C1 vs. C2 = .90) and peak exercise ST levels (NP vs. C1 = .58, NP vs. C2 = .48, C1 vs. C2 = .67).

Conclusions

Concordance among raters, and with the computer-generated algorithm, was moderate to high for all parameters of EST interpretation. This study lends support to NPs interpreting ESTs.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 12.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0147-9563(07)00108-2

doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2007.05.009

Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care
Volume 37, Issue 2 , Pages 144-152, March 2008