Regadenoson versus dipyridamole: Evaluation of stress myocardial blood flow response on a CZT-SPECT camera.
CZT-SPECT
Dipyridamole
Myocardial blood flow
Myocardial flow reserve
Regadenoson
Journal
Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology
ISSN: 1532-6551
Titre abrégé: J Nucl Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9423534
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
08
05
2020
accepted:
26
06
2020
pubmed:
12
7
2020
medline:
30
4
2022
entrez:
12
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Regadenoson is a selective adenosine receptor agonist. It is currently unclear if the level of hyperemia differs between stress agents. We compared Myocardial Blood Flow (MBF) and Myocardial Flow Reserve (MFR) response on CZT-SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (MPI) to evaluate if dipyridamole and regadenoson could induce the same level of hyperemia. 228 patients with dynamic CZT-SPECT MPI were retrospectively analyzed (66 patients stressed with regadenoson and 162 with dipyridamole) in terms of MBF and MFR. To rule out confounding factors, two groups of 41 patients were matched for clinical characteristics in a sub-analysis, excluding high cardiovascular risk patients. Overall stress MBF was higher in regadenoson patients (1.71 ± 0.73 vs. 1.44 ± 0.55 mL·min Our results suggest that dipyridamole and regadenoson induce equivalent hyperemia in dynamic SPECT with similar stress MBF and MFR in comparable patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Regadenoson is a selective adenosine receptor agonist. It is currently unclear if the level of hyperemia differs between stress agents. We compared Myocardial Blood Flow (MBF) and Myocardial Flow Reserve (MFR) response on CZT-SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (MPI) to evaluate if dipyridamole and regadenoson could induce the same level of hyperemia.
METHODS
METHODS
228 patients with dynamic CZT-SPECT MPI were retrospectively analyzed (66 patients stressed with regadenoson and 162 with dipyridamole) in terms of MBF and MFR. To rule out confounding factors, two groups of 41 patients were matched for clinical characteristics in a sub-analysis, excluding high cardiovascular risk patients.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall stress MBF was higher in regadenoson patients (1.71 ± 0.73 vs. 1.44 ± 0.55 mL·min
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that dipyridamole and regadenoson induce equivalent hyperemia in dynamic SPECT with similar stress MBF and MFR in comparable patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32651801
doi: 10.1007/s12350-020-02271-5
pii: 10.1007/s12350-020-02271-5
doi:
Substances chimiques
Purines
0
Pyrazoles
0
regadenoson
2XLN4Y044H
Dipyridamole
64ALC7F90C
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
113-122Informations de copyright
© 2020. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology.
Références
Johnson SG, Peters S. Advances in pharmacologic stress agents: Focus on regadenoson. J Nucl Med Technol 2010;38:163-71.
pubmed: 20724531
Leaker BR, O’Connor B, Hansel TT, Barnes PJ, Meng L, Mathur VS, et al. Safety of regadenoson, an adenosine A2A receptor agonist for myocardial perfusion imaging, in mild asthma and moderate asthma patients: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Nucl Cardiol 2008;15:329-36.
pubmed: 18513639
Page RL, Spurck P, Bainbridge JL, Michalek J, Quaife RA. Seizures associated with regadenoson: A case series. J Nucl Cardiol 2012;19:389-91.
pubmed: 22002651
Druz RS. Current advances in vasodilator pharmacological stress perfusion imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2009;39:204-9.
pubmed: 19341840
Iskandrian AE, Bateman TM, Belardinelli L, Blackburn B, Cerqueira MD, Hendel RC, et al. Adenosine versus regadenoson comparative evaluation in myocardial perfusion imaging: results of the ADVANCE phase 3 multicenter international trial. J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14:645-58.
pubmed: 17826318
Mahmarian JJ, Cerqueira MD, Iskandrian AE, Bateman TM, Thomas GS, Hendel RC, et al. Regadenoson induces comparable left ventricular perfusion defects as adenosine: A quantitative analysis from the ADVANCE MPI 2 trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2009;2:959-68.
pubmed: 19679284
Mahmarian JJ, Peterson LE, Xu J, Cerqueira MD, Iskandrian AE, Bateman TM, et al. Regadenoson provides perfusion results comparable to adenosine in heterogeneous patient populations: A quantitative analysis from the ADVANCE MPI trials. J Nucl Cardiol 2015;22:248-61.
pubmed: 25287737
Cerqueira MD, Nguyen P, Staehr P, Underwood SR, Iskandrian AE, ADVANCE-MPI Trial Investigators. Effects of age, gender, obesity, and diabetes on the efficacy and safety of the selective A2A agonist regadenoson versus adenosine in myocardial perfusion imaging integrated ADVANCE-MPI trial results. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2008;1:307-16.
pubmed: 19356442
Iqbal FM, Hage FG, Ahmed A, Dean PJ, Raslan S, Heo J, et al. Comparison of the prognostic value of normal regadenoson with normal adenosine myocardial perfusion imaging with propensity score matching. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;5:1014-21.
pubmed: 23058068
Golzar Y, Doukky R. Regadenoson use in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: The state of current knowledge. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2014;9:129-37.
pubmed: 24489466
pmcid: 3904829
Hussain N, Chaudhry W, Ahlberg AW, Amara RS, Elfar A, Parker MW, et al. An assessment of the safety, hemodynamic response, and diagnostic accuracy of commonly used vasodilator stressors in patients with severe aortic stenosis. J Nucl Cardiol 2017;24:1200-13.
pubmed: 26979307
Rai M, Ahlberg AW, Marwell J, Chaudhary W, Savino JA, Alter EL, et al. Safety of vasodilator stress myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with elevated cardiac biomarkers. J Nucl Cardiol 2017;24:724-34.
pubmed: 26902485
Gupta A, Bajaj NS. Regadenoson use for stress myocardial perfusion imaging in advance chronic kidney disease and dialysis: Safe, effective, and efficient. J Nucl Cardiol 2018;25:150-2.
pubmed: 28808896
American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. MedAxiom Nuclear Survey. J Nucl Cardiol 2014;21:5-88.
Lindner O, Burchert W, Buechel R, Schäfer WM, Im Namen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft „Kardiovaskuläre Nuklearmedizin“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Nuklearmedizin under AG20 „Nuklearkardiologische Diagnostik“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie. Myocardial Perfusion SPECT 2018 in Germany: Results of the 8th Survey. Nukl Nucl Med 2019;58(6):425-33.
Camici PG, Rimoldi OE. The clinical value of myocardial blood flow measurement. J Nucl Med 2009;50:1076.
pubmed: 19525470
Nkoulou R, Fuchs TA, Pazhenkottil AP, Kuest SM, Ghadri JR, Stehli J, et al. Absolute myocardial blood flow and flow reserve assessed by gated SPECT with cadmium-zinc-telluride detectors using 99mTc-tetrofosmin: head-to-head comparison with 13 N-ammonia PET. J Nucl Med 2016;57:1887-92.
pubmed: 27363834
Agostini D, Roule V, Nganoa C, Roth N, Baavour R, Parienti J-J, et al. First validation of myocardial flow reserve assessed by dynamic 99mTc-sestamibi CZT-SPECT camera: Head to head comparison with 15O-water PET and fractional flow reserve in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. The WATERDAY study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018;45:1079-90.
pubmed: 29497801
pmcid: 5953996
Giubbini R, Bertoli M, Durmo R, Bonacina M, Peli A, Faggiano I, et al. Comparison between N13NH3-PET and 99mTc-Tetrofosmin-CZT SPECT in the evaluation of absolute myocardial blood flow and flow reserve. J Nucl Cardiol 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-019-01939-x .
doi: 10.1007/s12350-019-01939-x
pubmed: 31728817
Acampa W, Zampella E, Assante R, Genova A, De Simini G, Mannarino T, et al. Quantification of myocardial perfusion reserve by CZT-SPECT: A head to head comparison with 82Rubidium PET imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-020-02129-w .
doi: 10.1007/s12350-020-02129-w
pubmed: 33205326
Goudarzi B, Fukushima K, Bravo P, Merrill J, Bengel FM. Comparison of the myocardial blood flow response to regadenoson and dipyridamole: A quantitative analysis in patients referred for clinical 82Rb myocardial perfusion PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:1908-16.
pubmed: 21656246
Bravo PE, Pozios I, Pinheiro A, Merrill J, Tsui BMW, Wahl RL, et al. Comparison and effectiveness of regadenoson versus dipyridamole on stress electrocardiographic changes during positron emission tomography evaluation of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol 2012;110:1033-9.
pubmed: 22748357
pmcid: 3439569
Johnson NP, Gould KL. Regadenoson versus dipyridamole hyperemia for cardiac PET imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;8:438-47.
pubmed: 25797122
Verberne HJ, Acampa W, Anagnostopoulos C, Ballinger J, Bengel F, De Bondt P, et al. EANM procedural guidelines for radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging with SPECT and SPECT/CT: 2015 revision. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015;42:1929-40.
pubmed: 26290421
pmcid: 4589547
Iskandrian AS, Heo J, Askenase A, Segal BL, Auerbach N. Dipyridamole cardiac imaging. Am Heart J 1988;115:432-43.
pubmed: 3277361
lexiscan.pdf. [cited 2019 28]. https://www.astellas.us/docs/lexiscan.pdf .
Lortie M, Beanlands RSB, Yoshinaga K, Klein R, Dasilva JN, DeKemp RA. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1765-74.
pubmed: 17619189
Leppo JA, Meerdink DJ. Comparison of the myocardial uptake of a technetium-labeled isonitrile analogue and thallium. Circ Res 1989;65:632-9.
pubmed: 2527638
Yoshida K, Mullani N, Gould KL. Coronary flow and flow reserve by PET simplified for clinical applications using rubidium-82 or nitrogen-13-ammonia. J Nucl Med 1996;37:1701-12.
pubmed: 8862316
GraphPad Software, La Jolla California USA, www.graphpad.com .
Trochu J-N, Zhao G, Post H, Xu X, Belardinelli L, Belloni FL, et al. Selective A2A adenosine receptor agonist as a coronary vasodilator in conscious dogs: potential for use in myocardial perfusion imaging. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2003;41:132-9.
pubmed: 12500031
Hudgens S, Breeze J, Spalding J. Patient- and clinician-reported satisfaction with pharmacological stress agents for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). J Med Econ 2013;16:828-34.
pubmed: 23614479
Zhao G, Linke A, Xu X, Ochoa M, Belloni F, Belardinelli L, et al. Comparative profile of vasodilation by CVT-3146, ael A2A receptor agonist, and adenosine in conscious dogs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2003;307:182-9.
pubmed: 12954805
Buhr C, Gössl M, Erbel R, Eggebrecht H. Regadenoson in the detection of coronary artery disease. Vasc Health Risk Manag 2008;4:337-40.
pubmed: 18561509
pmcid: 2496979
Husain Z, Palani G, Cabrera R, Karthikeyan AS, Dhanalakota S, Pathmanathan S, et al. Hemodynamic response, arrhythmic risk, and overall safety of regadenoson as a pharmacologic stress agent for myocardial perfusion imaging in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchial asthma patients. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;28:1841-9.
pubmed: 22200931
Bouallçgue FB, Nganoa C, Vigne J, Agostini D, Manrique A. Comparative performances of dipyridamole and regadenoson to detect myocardial ischemia using cardiac cadmium-zinc-telluride single-photon emission computerized tomography. J Clin Imaging Sci 2018;8:51.
pubmed: 30546935
Assaad M, Berry A, Palanisamy J, Fenner J, Zughaib M. Differential effect of regadenoson versus dipyridamole on heart rate in patients with left bundle branch block: How does it affect the results of pharmacological nuclear stress testing? JRSM Cardiovasc Dis 2019;8:2048004019828257.
pubmed: 30792855
pmcid: 6376496
Hendel RC, Bateman TM, Cerqueira MD, Iskandrian AE, Leppo JA, Blackburn B, et al. Initial clinical experience with regadenoson, ael selective A2A agonist for pharmacologic stress single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:2069-75.
pubmed: 16325044
Cullom SJ, Case JA, Courter SA, McGhie AI, Bateman TM. Regadenoson pharmacologic rubidium-82 PET: A comparison of quantitative perfusion and function to dipyridamole. J Nucl Cardiol 2013;20:76-83.
pubmed: 23188625
Vasu S, Bandettini WP, Hsu L-Y, Kellman P, Leung S, Mancini C, et al. Regadenoson and adenosine are equivalent vasodilators and are superior than dipyridamole: A study of first pass quantitative perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2013;24:85.
DiBella EVR, Fluckiger JU, Chen L, Kim TH, Pack NA, Matthews B, et al. The effect of obesity on regadenoson-induced myocardial hyperemia: A quantitative magnetic resonance imaging study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;28:1435-44.
pubmed: 21968545
Stolker JM, Lim MJ, Shavelle DM, Morris DL, Angiolillo DJ, Guzman LA, et al. Pooled comparison of regadenoson versus adenosine for measuring fractional flow reserve and coronary flow in the catheterization laboratory. Cardiovasc Revascularization Med Mol Interv 2015;16:266-71.
Lieu HD, Shryock JC, von Mering GO, Gordi T, Blackburn B, Olmsted AW, et al. Regadenoson, a selective A2A adenosine receptor agonist, causes dose-dependent increases in coronary blood flow velocity in humans. J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14:514-20.
pubmed: 17679059
van Nunen LX, Lenders GD, Schampaert S, van’t Veer M, Wijnbergen I, Brueren GRG, et al. Single bolus intravenous regadenoson injection versus central venous infusion of adenosine for maximum coronary hyperaemia in fractional flow reserve measurement. EuroInterv J Eur Collab Work Group Interv Cardiol Eur Soc Cardiol 2015;11:905-13.
Potier L, Chequer R, Roussel R, Mohammedi K, Sismail S, Hartemann A, et al. Relationship between cardiac microvascular dysfunction measured with 82Rubidium-PET and albuminuria in patients with diabetes mellitus. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2018;17:11.
pubmed: 29325551
pmcid: 5763541
Di Carli MF, Janisse J, Grunberger G, Ager J. Role of chronic hyperglycemia in the pathogenesis of coronary microvascular dysfunction in diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:1387-93.
pubmed: 12706936
Fang Y-HD, Liu Y-C, Ho K-C, Kuo F-C, Yang C-F, Yen T-C, et al. Single-scan rest/stress imaging with 99mTc-Sestamibi and cadmium zinc telluride-based SPECT for hyperemic flow quantification: A feasibility study evaluated with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS ONE 2017;12:e0183402.
pubmed: 28817662
pmcid: 5560722
Zavadovsky KV, Mochula AV, Boshchenko AA, Vrublevsky AV, Baev AE, Krylov AL, et al. Absolute myocardial blood flows derived by dynamic CZT scan vs invasive fractional flow reserve: Correlation and accuracy. J Nucl Cardiol 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-019-01678-z .
doi: 10.1007/s12350-019-01678-z
pubmed: 30847856
Murthy VL, Lee BC, Sitek A, Naya M, Moody J, Polavarapu V, et al. Comparison and prognostic validation of multiple methods of quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb PET. J Nucl Med 2014;55:1952-8.
pubmed: 25429160
Bailly M, Thibault F, Courtehoux M, Metrard G, Ribeiro MJ. Impact of attenuation correction for CZT-SPECT measurement of myocardial blood flow. J Nucl Cardiol 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-020-02075-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s12350-020-02075-7
pubmed: 32651801
Wells RG, Marvin B, Poirier M, Renaud J, deKemp RA, Ruddy TD. Optimization of SPECT measurement of myocardial blood flow with corrections for attenuation, motion, and blood binding compared with PET. J Nucl Med 2017;58:2013-9.
pubmed: 28611245
Amer KA, Hurren JR, Edwin SB, Cohen G. Regadenoson versus dipyridamole: A comparison of the frequency of adverse events in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging. Pharmacotherapy 2017;37:657-61.
pubmed: 28475259
Chen W, Thomas J, Sadatsafavi M, FitzGerald JM. Risk of cardiovascular comorbidity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med 2015;3:631-9.
pubmed: 26208998