BACKGROUND: The safety and accuracy of regadenoson stress positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with significant aortic stenosis (AS) is unknown. In patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, coronary artery bypass grafting for coronary artery disease is standard, but the appropriate revascularization strategy in patients undergoing TAVR is uncertain. Stress PET may identify patients that benefit from revascularization. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients who were referred for consideration of TAVR and underwent a stress PET study were retrospectively identified. We assessed major adverse cardiac events and significant decreases in systolic blood pressure. The percentage of jeopardized myocardium was determined by combining ischemic and hibernating myocardium. RESULTS: Our patients were high risk with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality score of 11.4% and had severe AS with a moderately reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) (mean aortic valve area of 0.78 ± 0.25 cm(2) and mean EF of 39 ± 16%). There were no major adverse events during testing. Transient hypotension occurred in 16% of the patients. Revascularization was performed in 44% of patients, and 91% of these patients had revascularization to territories jeopardized on PET. These patients had substantial jeopardized myocardium (median 19%), and only 3 patients underwent revascularization despite less than 10% jeopardized myocardium. CONCLUSIONS: Stress cardiac PET with regadenoson can be performed safely in patients with severe AS. Results of the PET study can accurately direct subsequent revascularization.
BACKGROUND: The safety and accuracy of regadenoson stress positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with significant aortic stenosis (AS) is unknown. In patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, coronary artery bypass grafting for coronary artery disease is standard, but the appropriate revascularization strategy in patients undergoing TAVR is uncertain. Stress PET may identify patients that benefit from revascularization. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients who were referred for consideration of TAVR and underwent a stress PET study were retrospectively identified. We assessed major adverse cardiac events and significant decreases in systolic blood pressure. The percentage of jeopardized myocardium was determined by combining ischemic and hibernating myocardium. RESULTS: Our patients were high risk with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality score of 11.4% and had severe AS with a moderately reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) (mean aortic valve area of 0.78 ± 0.25 cm(2) and mean EF of 39 ± 16%). There were no major adverse events during testing. Transient hypotension occurred in 16% of the patients. Revascularization was performed in 44% of patients, and 91% of these patients had revascularization to territories jeopardized on PET. These patients had substantial jeopardized myocardium (median 19%), and only 3 patients underwent revascularization despite less than 10% jeopardized myocardium. CONCLUSIONS: Stress cardiac PET with regadenoson can be performed safely in patients with severe AS. Results of the PET study can accurately direct subsequent revascularization.
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: Martin B Leon; Craig R Smith; Michael Mack; D Craig Miller; Jeffrey W Moses; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; John G Webb; Gregory P Fontana; Raj R Makkar; David L Brown; Peter C Block; Robert A Guyton; Augusto D Pichard; Joseph E Bavaria; Howard C Herrmann; Pamela S Douglas; John L Petersen; Jodi J Akin; William N Anderson; Duolao Wang; Stuart Pocock Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K Lance Gould; Nils P Johnson; Timothy M Bateman; Rob S Beanlands; Frank M Bengel; Robert Bober; Paolo G Camici; Manuel D Cerqueira; Benjamin J W Chow; Marcelo F Di Carli; Sharmila Dorbala; Henry Gewirtz; Robert J Gropler; Philipp A Kaufmann; Paul Knaapen; Juhani Knuuti; Michael E Merhige; K Peter Rentrop; Terrence D Ruddy; Heinrich R Schelbert; Thomas H Schindler; Markus Schwaiger; Stefano Sdringola; John Vitarello; Kim A Williams; Donald Gordon; Vasken Dilsizian; Jagat Narula Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Craig R Smith; Martin B Leon; Michael J Mack; D Craig Miller; Jeffrey W Moses; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; John G Webb; Gregory P Fontana; Raj R Makkar; Mathew Williams; Todd Dewey; Samir Kapadia; Vasilis Babaliaros; Vinod H Thourani; Paul Corso; Augusto D Pichard; Joseph E Bavaria; Howard C Herrmann; Jodi J Akin; William N Anderson; Duolao Wang; Stuart J Pocock Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rory Hachamovitch; Alan Rozanski; Leslee J Shaw; Gregg W Stone; Louise E J Thomson; John D Friedman; Sean W Hayes; Ishac Cohen; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Lee Fong Ling; Thomas H Marwick; Demetrio Roland Flores; Wael A Jaber; Richard C Brunken; Manuel D Cerqueira; Rory Hachamovitch Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Mireille Lortie; Rob S B Beanlands; Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Ran Klein; Jean N Dasilva; Robert A DeKemp Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-07-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Milena J Henzlova; W Lane Duvall; Andrew J Einstein; Mark I Travin; Hein J Verberne Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Nasir Hussain; Waseem Chaudhry; Alan W Ahlberg; Richard S Amara; Ahmed Elfar; Matthew W Parker; John A Savino; Ruwanthi Titano; Milena J Henzlova; William L Duvall Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Jo M Zelis; Pim A L Tonino; Nico H J Pijls; Bernard De Bruyne; Richard L Kirkeeide; K Lance Gould; Nils P Johnson Journal: J Interv Cardiol Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 2.279