Literature DB >> 1728203

Comparison of adenosine, dipyridamole, and dobutamine in stress echocardiography.

T W Martin1, J F Seaworth, J P Johns, L E Pupa, W R Condos.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare adenosine, dipyridamole, and dobutamine in stress echocardiography with regard to sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and side effects.
DESIGN: Crossover, blinded comparison, with coronary angiography serving as the criterion standard.
SETTING: U.S. Army tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Forty participants, 25 with coronary disease and 15 without coronary disease. Patients were eligible if they had coronary angiography within 6 weeks of stress testing or if they had a risk for coronary disease of less than 5%. MEASUREMENTS: Left ventricular wall motion was recorded after dobutamine (0.38 mg/kg body weight), adenosine (0.84 mg/kg body weight), and dipyridamole (0.84 mg/kg body weight) stress testing. Stress echocardiographic evaluation was considered to be abnormal if the patient developed new or progressive wall motion abnormalities. The rate of side effects for the types of echocardiography and the patient preference were recorded. MAIN
RESULTS: The sensitivity of dobutamine stress echocardiography (76%; 95% CI, 59% to 93%) was significantly higher than that of adenosine echocardiography (40%; CI, 21% to 59%; P less than 0.001) and that of dipyridamole echocardiography (56%; CI, 37% to 75%; P = 0.019). The specificity of adenosine testing (93%; CI, 80% to 100%) was significantly higher than that of dobutamine echocardiography (60%; CI, 35% to 85%; P = 0.008) and that of dipyridamole echocardiography (67%; CI, 43% to 91%; P = 0.028). Symptoms were more frequent with adenosine echocardiography (100%) than with dipyridamole (88%; P less than 0.001) or dobutamine (80%; P less than 0.001) echocardiography. Treatment for persistent symptoms was required in more patients after dipyridamole echocardiography (40%) than after dobutamine (12%; P less than 0.001) or adenosine (0%; P less than 0.001) echocardiography. More patients preferred dobutamine (48%) or dipyridamole (40%) echocardiography to adenosine echocardiography (12%; P less than 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Dobutamine stress echocardiography is more sensitive and is better tolerated than adenosine or dipyridamole stress echocardiography. Adenosine echocardiography is more specific than dobutamine or dipyridamole echocardiography and is less likely to cause persistent symptoms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1728203     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-116-3-190

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  25 in total

1.  Noninvasive Cardiac Imaging in Chest Pain Syndromes.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 2.  Pharmacologic stress testing: new methods and new agents.

Authors:  Robert C Hendel; Tariq Jamil; David K Glover
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.952

3.  Dipyridamole stress echocardiography: to be included in the Guidelines or to be abandoned from the clinical arena?

Authors:  Ernst E van der Wall; Jeroen J Bax
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.357

4.  Diagnostic accuracy of contrast echocardiography during adenosine stress for detection of abnormal myocardial perfusion: a prospective comparison with technetium-99 m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography.

Authors:  Sahar S Abdelmoneim; Mathieu Bernier; Abhijeet Dhoble; Stuart Moir; Mary E Hagen; Sue Ann C Ness; Patricia A Pellikka; Samir S Abdel-Kader; Sharon L Mulvagh
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 2.037

5.  Detection of coronary artery disease using real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography: a comparison with dual-isotope resting thallium-201/stress technectium-99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography.

Authors:  Shoa-Lin Lin; Kuan-Rau Chiou; Wei-Chun Huang; Nan-Jing Peng; Daw-Guey Tsay; Chun-Peng Liu
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 2.037

6.  First-line testing.

Authors:  A E Iskandrian
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  1998 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 7.  Myocardial perfusion imaging versus two-dimensional echocardiography: comparative value in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease.

Authors:  M S Verani
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  1994 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 8.  Pharmacologic stress testing: mechanism of action, hemodynamic responses, and results in detection of coronary artery disease.

Authors:  A S Iskandrian; M S Verani; J Heo
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  1994 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.952

9.  Pharmacological stress: a useful exercise?

Authors:  E E van der Wall
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.380

10.  Selection of the optimal stress test for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease.

Authors:  J A San Román; I Vilacosta; J A Castillo; M J Rollán; M Hernández; V Peral; I Garcimartín; M M de la Torre; F Fernández-Avilés
Journal:  Heart       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 5.994

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.