The effectiveness results were as follows:
The feasibility of ESE was 97% (112 out of 115 patients of the total study population and 57 of the 59 patients who underwent coronary angiography).
Of the 59 patients undergoing coronary angiography, the sensitivity of ESE and ETS were not significantly different (84.1% compared to 91.3% respectively).
However, despite the apparent marked difference in specificity (92.3% compared to 61.5% respectively), the p value was non-significant, as there were only 13 normals in the group who underwent coronary angiography.
Overall accuracy was also similar (86.0% compared to 84.7% respectively) and therefore not significantly different.
By contrast, agreement with coronary angiography as measured by the kappa statistic (k +/- SEk) was good for ESE (0.66 +/- 0.11) but only moderate for ETS (0.54 +/- 0.13).
The distribution pattern of disease at coronary angiography revealed 24 patients (40.6%) with single vessel disease (SVD), 16 patients (27.1%) with double vessel disease, six patients (10.2%) with triple vessel disease and 13 normals (22.0%).
Therefore, 46 of the 59 patients had significant CAD resulting in a disease prevalence of 78.0%.