The WOMEN Study: What is the Optimal Method for Ischemia Evaluation in WomeN?
This study has been completed.
Sponsor:
Hartford Hospital
Collaborator:
GE Healthcare
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Hartford Hospital
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT00282711
First received: January 25, 2006
Last updated: July 31, 2012
Last verified: July 2012
- Full Text View
- Tabular View
- No Study Results Posted
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to compare two types of exercise stress testing to find the best method for detecting heart disease in women.
| Condition |
|---|
|
Coronary Artery Disease Heart Disease Coronary Arteriosclerosis Cardiovascular Disease Myocardial Ischemia |
| Study Type: | Observational |
| Study Design: | Observational Model: Cohort Time Perspective: Prospective |
| Official Title: | The WOMEN Study: What is the Optimal Method for Ischemia Evaluation in WomeN?"A Multi-Center, Prospective, Randomized Study to Establish the Optimal Method for Detection of CAD Risk in Women at an Intermediate-High Pre-Test Likelihood CAD" |
Resource links provided by NLM:
Further study details as provided by Hartford Hospital:
Primary Outcome Measures:
- To compare 2-year event rates for women capable of performing exercise treadmill testing with normal myocardial perfusion SPECT using Tc-99m tetrofosmin as compared with a negative stress ECG. [ Time Frame: 2 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
Secondary Outcome Measures:
- To evaluate the differential prognostic accuracy of normal exercise myocardial perfusion Tc-99m tetrofosmin SPECT against a normal exercise ECG. [ Time Frame: 2 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- To compare the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of exercise ECG versus exercise ECG-gated Tc-99m tetrofosmin SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging in women who undergo an elective cardiac catheterization. [ Time Frame: 2 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- Utility of the DASI questionnaire in determining which women are able to achieve predicted maximal heart rate response with treadmill testing [ Time Frame: 2 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- Non-fatal myocardial infarction [ Time Frame: 2 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- Unstable angina leading to revascularization [ Time Frame: 2 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- Unstable angina with objective evidence of ischemia requiring hospitalization [ Time Frame: 2 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- Cardiac death [ Time Frame: 2 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- Hospitalization for heart failure [ Time Frame: 2 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- Revascularization [ Time Frame: 2 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- To provide objective information for developing guidelines for the evaluation of women at intermediate-high likelihood for CAD. [ Time Frame: 2 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
- A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing the various evaluation strategies. [ Time Frame: 2 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
| Enrollment: | 824 |
| Study Start Date: | June 2004 |
| Study Completion Date: | December 2010 |
| Primary Completion Date: | December 2008 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure) |
| Groups/Cohorts |
|---|
|
1
Standard Exercise treadmill test
|
|
2
Exercise treadmill testing with nuclear imaging
|
Show Detailed Description
Eligibility| Ages Eligible for Study: | 60 Years and older |
| Genders Eligible for Study: | Female |
| Accepts Healthy Volunteers: | No |
| Sampling Method: | Probability Sample |
Study Population
Females age 60 and above with suspected heart disease
Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- Women 60 years of age and older presenting for the evaluation of chest pain, or other anginal equivalent symptoms while at an intermediate-high pretest risk for IHD
Exclusion Criteria:
- Women with known CAD
- Women scoring <5 METs on the DASI
- Nursing or pregnant females
- Nuclear medicine study within the preceding 10 days
- Electrocardiographic abnormalities precluding interpretation of peak stress changes including: Left bundle branch block, electronic ventricular pacemaker, left ventricular hypertrophy, WPW, and resting ST-T wave changes. Additionally, patients currently on digoxin therapy
- Significant valvular heart disease (i.e. severe aortic stenosis or regurgitation, or severe mitral insufficiency)
- Hemodynamic instability (blood pressure >210/110 ml/Hg or <90/60 mm/Hg)
- Left ventricular systolic dysfunction with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 30 %
- Unavailability for long-term follow-up
Contacts and Locations
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00282711
Show 43 Study Locations
Show 43 Study LocationsSponsors and Collaborators
Hartford Hospital
GE Healthcare
Investigators
| Principal Investigator: | Gary V. Heller, M.D., Ph.D. | Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT |
| Principal Investigator: | Robert C. Hendel, M.D. | Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL |
| Principal Investigator: | Jennifer H. Mieres, M.D. | North SHore University Hospital, Long Island, NY |
| Principal Investigator: | Leslie J. Shaw, Ph.D. | Atlanta Cardiovascular Research Institute, Atlanta, GA |
More Information
Additional Information:
Publications:
Additional publications automatically indexed to this study by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number):
| Responsible Party: | Hartford Hospital |
| ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: | NCT00282711 History of Changes |
| Other Study ID Numbers: | HELL001524HE, The WOMEN study |
| Study First Received: | January 25, 2006 |
| Last Updated: | July 31, 2012 |
| Health Authority: | United States: Food and Drug Administration |
Keywords provided by Hartford Hospital:
|
Diagnostic Techniques, Radioisotope Radionuclide Imaging Diagnostic Techniques, Cardiovascular Heart Function tests |
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
|
Arteriosclerosis Cardiovascular Diseases Coronary Artery Disease Myocardial Ischemia Coronary Disease |
Heart Diseases Ischemia Arterial Occlusive Diseases Vascular Diseases Pathologic Processes |
ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on June 17, 2013