BACKGROUND: Dipyridamole is used for stress (82)rubidium chloride ((82)RbCl) PET because of its long hyperemic duration. Regadenoson has advantages of a fixed dose and favorable symptom profile, but its mean maximal hyperemia is only 2.3 minutes. To determine its suitability for (82)RbCl PET, we imaged subjects using a regadenoson protocol based on its hyperemic response and compared the images in the same subjects having dipyridamole PET. METHODS: In 32 subjects (23 M), we assessed visually by blinded interpretation and quantitatively compared summed stress and difference scores, total perfusion deficit (TPD), LVEF, LV volumes, and change in stress-rest function. Linear correlation and Bland-Altman analysis of the paired measurements were applied for evaluation of differences. Paired t test and Pearson's correlation were applied for testing of significance. RESULTS: The images were interpreted the same by visual assessment. Twenty-six (26) subjects had reversible defects; by quantitation the SSS was 12.9 ± 7.0 and 14.1 ± 6.4 (P = .23) and SDS was 7.0 ± 6.8 versus 7.6 ± 6.2 (P = .40) for dipyridamole and regadenoson, respectively. Six (6) subjects had <5% likelihood of CAD and were normal by both. All paired measurements showed a high positive correlation between regadenoson and dipyridamole; stress segmental perfusion Reg = 0.93Dip + 4.4, r = 0.88; TPD Reg = 0.94Dip + 0.41, r = 0.93; LVEF Reg = 0.92Dip + 4.7, r = 0.95; stress minus rest LVEF Reg = 0.87Dip - 0.99, r = 0.82. CONCLUSION: Regadenoson stress (82)RbCl PET perfusion defect and cardiac function measurements are visually and quantitatively equivalent to dipyridamole studies and can be obtained with the clinical advantages of regadenoson.
BACKGROUND:Dipyridamole is used for stress (82)rubidium chloride ((82)RbCl) PET because of its long hyperemic duration. Regadenoson has advantages of a fixed dose and favorable symptom profile, but its mean maximal hyperemia is only 2.3 minutes. To determine its suitability for (82)RbCl PET, we imaged subjects using a regadenoson protocol based on its hyperemic response and compared the images in the same subjects having dipyridamole PET. METHODS: In 32 subjects (23 M), we assessed visually by blinded interpretation and quantitatively compared summed stress and difference scores, total perfusion deficit (TPD), LVEF, LV volumes, and change in stress-rest function. Linear correlation and Bland-Altman analysis of the paired measurements were applied for evaluation of differences. Paired t test and Pearson's correlation were applied for testing of significance. RESULTS: The images were interpreted the same by visual assessment. Twenty-six (26) subjects had reversible defects; by quantitation the SSS was 12.9 ± 7.0 and 14.1 ± 6.4 (P = .23) and SDS was 7.0 ± 6.8 versus 7.6 ± 6.2 (P = .40) for dipyridamole and regadenoson, respectively. Six (6) subjects had <5% likelihood of CAD and were normal by both. All paired measurements showed a high positive correlation between regadenoson and dipyridamole; stress segmental perfusion Reg = 0.93Dip + 4.4, r = 0.88; TPD Reg = 0.94Dip + 0.41, r = 0.93; LVEF Reg = 0.92Dip + 4.7, r = 0.95; stress minus rest LVEF Reg = 0.87Dip - 0.99, r = 0.82. CONCLUSION:Regadenoson stress (82)RbCl PET perfusion defect and cardiac function measurements are visually and quantitatively equivalent to dipyridamole studies and can be obtained with the clinical advantages of regadenoson.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Piotr J Slomka; Hidetaka Nishina; Daniel S Berman; Cigdem Akincioglu; Aiden Abidov; John D Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Guido Germano Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
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
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
Authors: Maria Clementina Giorgi; Jose Claudio Meneghetti; Jose Soares; Marisa Izaki; Andréa Falcão; Rodrigo Imada; William Chalela; Marco Antonio de Oliveira; Cesar Nomura; Hein J Verberne Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 9.236
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