[Is the exercise test performed after myocardial infarct really useful in improving prognosis? Arguments in favor]

The evaluation of risk after myocardial infarction accomplishes two objectives: a) selecting patients with high-risk for coronary angiography and revascularization, and b) identifying low-risk patients to avoid unnecessary laboratory investigation and revascularization procedures. Currently, patients eligible for exercise test are those with no evidence of heart failure or angina, and with a preserved left ventricular function. Overall prognosis for such patients, especially if they were thrombolyzed, is very good. In this setting, in contrast to that pointed out in previous reports, the positive predictive value of exercise electrocardiography is very low (i.e., a patient with S-T depression has a probability of cardiac death in the ensuing year of only 4% vs 2% if the test is negative). This suggests that a routine postinfarction exercise test is inefficient from a prognostic point of view. However, a recent study has shown that thrombolyzed patients with a positive response to the exercise test, have a significantly lower rate of reinfarction and unstable angina when they undergo myocardial revascularization. Mortality rate, as it was low in the study population, was unchanged by the use of revascularization procedures. We conclude that, in spite of the limitations pointed out, there are at least two reasons to continue performing exercise tests in all uncomplicated infarctions: a) a negative test, due to its high negative predictive value for adverse events, reassures the patient and his family and prompts an early discharge, and b) some patients, despite an uncomplicated in-hospital evolution, have a "strong" positive response that suggests multivessel disease and a possible benefit from myocardial revascularization.