Literature DB >> 21656246

Comparison of the myocardial blood flow response to regadenoson and dipyridamole: a quantitative analysis in patients referred for clinical 82Rb myocardial perfusion PET.

Behnaz Goudarzi1, Kenji Fukushima, Paco Bravo, Jennifer Merrill, Frank M Bengel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Regadenoson is a novel selective A2A adenosine receptor agonist, which is administered as an intravenous bolus at a fixed dose. It is currently not clear if the absolute flow increase in response to this fixed dose is a function of distribution volume in individual patients or if it is generally comparable to the previous standard agents dipyridamole or adenosine, which are dosed based on weight. We used quantitative analysis of clinical 82Rb PET/CT studies to obtain further insights.
METHODS: A total of 104 subjects with normal clinical rest/stress 82Rb perfusion PET/CT were included in a retrospective analysis. To rule out confounding factors, none had evidence of prior cardiac disease, ischaemia or infarction, cardiomyopathy, diabetes with insulin use, calcium score>400, renal disease or other significant systemic disease. A group of 52 patients stressed with regadenoson were compared with a group of 52 patients stressed with dipyridamole before regadenoson became available. The groups were matched for clinical characteristics, risk factors and baseline haemodynamics. Myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) were quantified using a previously validated retention model, after resampling of dynamic studies from list-mode 82Rb datasets.
RESULTS: At rest, heart rate, blood pressure and MBF were comparable between the groups. Regadenoson resulted in a significantly higher heart rate (34±14 vs. 23±10 beats per minute increase from baseline; p<0.01) and rate-pressure product. Patients in the regadenoson group reported less severe symptoms and required less aminophylline. Stress MBF and MFR were not different between the groups (2.2±0.6 vs. 2.1±0.6 ml/min/g, p=0.39, and 2.9±0.8 vs. 2.8±0.7, p=0.31, respectively). In the regadenoson group, there was no correlation between stress flow or MFR and body weight or BMI.
CONCLUSION: Despite its administration at a fixed dose, regadenoson results in an absolute increase in MBF which is comparable to that following dipyridamole administration and is independent of patient distribution volume. This further supports its usefulness as a clinical stress agent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21656246     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-011-1853-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  24 in total

1.  Reference ranges for LVEF and LV volumes from electrocardiographically gated 82Rb cardiac PET/CT using commercially available software.

Authors:  Paco E Bravo; David Chien; Mehrbod Javadi; Jennifer Merrill; Frank M Bengel
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Initial clinical experience with regadenoson, a novel selective A2A agonist for pharmacologic stress single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Robert C Hendel; Timothy M Bateman; Manuel D Cerqueira; Ami E Iskandrian; Jeffrey A Leppo; Brent Blackburn; John J Mahmarian
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2005-11-09       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  Adenosine versus regadenoson comparative evaluation in myocardial perfusion imaging: results of the ADVANCE phase 3 multicenter international trial.

Authors:  Ami E Iskandrian; Timothy M Bateman; Luiz Belardinelli; Brent Blackburn; Manuel D Cerqueira; Robert C Hendel; Hsiao Lieu; John J Mahmarian; Ann Olmsted; S Richard Underwood; João Vitola; Whedy Wang
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2007 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.952

4.  Independent and incremental prognostic value of left ventricular ejection fraction determined by stress gated rubidium 82 PET imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Kirkeith Lertsburapa; Alan W Ahlberg; Timothy M Bateman; Deborah Katten; Lyndy Volker; S James Cullom; Gary V Heller
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2008-09-12       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Rubidium-82 PET-CT for quantitative assessment of myocardial blood flow: validation in a canine model of coronary artery stenosis.

Authors:  Riikka Lautamäki; Richard T George; Kakuya Kitagawa; Takahiro Higuchi; Jennifer Merrill; Corina Voicu; Anthony DiPaula; Stephan G Nekolla; João A C Lima; Albert C Lardo; Frank M Bengel
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-11-05       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  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.

Authors:  Manuel D Cerqueira; Patricia Nguyen; Peter Staehr; S Richard Underwood; Ami E Iskandrian
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2008-05

Review 7.  Regadenoson: a new myocardial stress agent.

Authors:  Wael Al Jaroudi; Ami E Iskandrian
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2009-09-22       Impact factor: 24.094

8.  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.

Authors:  Brian R Leaker; B O'Connor; Trevor T Hansel; Peter J Barnes; Lixen Meng; Vandana S Mathur; Hsiao D Lieu
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2008-04-14       Impact factor: 5.952

9.  Diagnostic accuracy of rest/stress ECG-gated Rb-82 myocardial perfusion PET: comparison with ECG-gated Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT.

Authors:  Timothy M Bateman; Gary V Heller; A Iain McGhie; John D Friedman; James A Case; Jan R Bryngelson; Ginger K Hertenstein; Kelly L Moutray; Kimberly Reid; S James Cullom
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.952

10.  Changes in myocardial perfusion abnormalities by positron emission tomography after long-term, intense risk factor modification.

Authors:  K L Gould; D Ornish; L Scherwitz; S Brown; R P Edens; M J Hess; N Mullani; L Bolomey; F Dobbs; W T Armstrong
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-09-20       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  15 in total

1.  Patient-centered imaging.

Authors:  E Gordon Depuey; John J Mahmarian; Todd D Miller; Andrew J Einstein; Christopher L Hansen; Thomas A Holly; Edward J Miller; Donna M Polk; L Samuel Wann
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 2.  Clinical use of quantitative cardiac perfusion PET: rationale, modalities and possible indications. Position paper of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM).

Authors:  Roberto Sciagrà; Alessandro Passeri; Jan Bucerius; Hein J Verberne; Riemer H J A Slart; Oliver Lindner; Alessia Gimelli; Fabien Hyafil; Denis Agostini; Christopher Übleis; Marcus Hacker
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Prognostication in the era of a new stressor for myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Wanda Acampa; Marco Salvatore; Alberto Cuocolo
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-02-20       Impact factor: 5.952

4.  Time-frame sampling for 82Rb PET flow quantification: Towards standardization of clinical protocols.

Authors:  Ran Klein; Adrian Ocneanu; Robert A deKemp
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-07-07       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Regadenoson-induced hyperemia for absolute myocardial blood flow quantitation by 13N-ammonia PET and detection of cardiac allograft vasculopathy.

Authors:  René R Sevag Packard; Jamshid Maddahi
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-01-30       Impact factor: 5.952

6.  Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction, Left Ventricular Remodeling, and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Kidney Impairment.

Authors:  Navkaranbir S Bajaj; Amitoj Singh; Wunan Zhou; Ankur Gupta; Kana Fujikura; Christina Byrne; Hendrik J Harms; Michael T Osborne; Paco Bravo; Efstathia Andrikopolou; Sanjay Divakaran; Courtney F Bibbo; Jon Hainer; Hicham Skali; Viviany Taqueti; Michael Steigner; Sharmila Dorbala; David M Charytan; Sumanth D Prabhu; Ron Blankstein; Rahul C Deo; Scott D Solomon; Marcelo F Di Carli
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2019-11-29       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  Comparison and effectiveness of regadenoson versus dipyridamole on stress electrocardiographic changes during positron emission tomography evaluation of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Paco E Bravo; Iraklis Pozios; Aurélio Pinheiro; Jennifer Merrill; Benjamin M W Tsui; Richard L Wahl; Frank M Bengel; M Roselle Abraham; Theodore P Abraham
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 2.778

8.  Chronotropic response to vasodilator-stress in patients submitted to myocardial perfusion imaging: impact on the accuracy in detecting coronary stenosis.

Authors:  Alessia Gimelli; Riccardo Liga; Michele Coceani; Angela Quaranta; Michele Emdin; Paolo Marzullo
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  The relationship between ischemia-induced left ventricular dysfunction, coronary flow reserve, and coronary steal on regadenoson stress-gated (82)Rb PET myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Andrew Van Tosh; John R Votaw; Nathaniel Reichek; Christopher J Palestro; Kenneth J Nichols
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 5.952

10.  Detection of obstructive coronary artery disease using regadenoson stress and 82Rb PET/CT myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Edward Hsiao; Bilal Ali; Ron Blankstein; Hicham Skali; Towhid Ali; John Bruyere; Raymond Y Kwong; Marcelo F Di Carli; Sharmila Dorbala
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-08-12       Impact factor: 10.057

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.