BACKGROUND: Regadenoson is now widely used in single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). However, the prognostic value of abnormal stress perfusion findings with regadenoson vs adenosine are unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of regadenoson SPECT and to compare it to that of adenosine SPECT. METHODS AND RESULTS: 3698 consecutive patients undergoing either adenosine or regadenoson SPECT were assessed at 1 year for the endpoints of cardiovascular death and a composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or MI. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression modeling with the inverse probability weighted (IPW) estimators method adjusting to propensity for agent was used to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Patients undergoing adenosine SPECT MPI had a significantly higher prevalence of smoking history, diabetes, hypertension, and prior myocardial infarction (P < .05, all). At 1 year of follow-up, there were 154 cardiovascular deaths and 204 with the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or MI. Using IPW adjustment to propensity for agent in a model with stress agent, summed stress score (SSS) remained a significant predictor of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or MI (HR 1.36 CI 1.28-1.46; P < .0001) as well as cardiovascular death (HR 1.38 CI 1.28-1.49; P < .0001). The interaction of SSS with agent was not significant. Similar findings were seen with summed difference score (SDS). CONCLUSIONS: SSS derived from either adenosine or regadenoson SPECT MPI is a significant predictor of events and provides incremental prognostic information beyond basic clinical variables. We have shown for the first time that use of regadenoson vs adenosine as stress agent does not modify the prognostic significance of SSS. Similar findings were seen with SDS.
BACKGROUND:Regadenoson is now widely used in single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). However, the prognostic value of abnormal stress perfusion findings with regadenoson vs adenosine are unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of regadenoson SPECT and to compare it to that of adenosine SPECT. METHODS AND RESULTS: 3698 consecutive patients undergoing either adenosine or regadenoson SPECT were assessed at 1 year for the endpoints of cardiovascular death and a composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or MI. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression modeling with the inverse probability weighted (IPW) estimators method adjusting to propensity for agent was used to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Patients undergoing adenosine SPECT MPI had a significantly higher prevalence of smoking history, diabetes, hypertension, and prior myocardial infarction (P < .05, all). At 1 year of follow-up, there were 154 cardiovascular deaths and 204 with the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or MI. Using IPW adjustment to propensity for agent in a model with stress agent, summed stress score (SSS) remained a significant predictor of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or MI (HR 1.36 CI 1.28-1.46; P < .0001) as well as cardiovascular death (HR 1.38 CI 1.28-1.49; P < .0001). The interaction of SSS with agent was not significant. Similar findings were seen with summed difference score (SDS). CONCLUSIONS: SSS derived from either adenosine or regadenoson SPECT MPI is a significant predictor of events and provides incremental prognostic information beyond basic clinical variables. We have shown for the first time that use of regadenoson vs adenosine as stress agent does not modify the prognostic significance of SSS. Similar findings were seen with SDS.
Authors: Nico H J Pijls; William F Fearon; Pim A L Tonino; Uwe Siebert; Fumiaki Ikeno; Bernhard Bornschein; Marcel van't Veer; Volker Klauss; Ganesh Manoharan; Thomas Engstrøm; Keith G Oldroyd; Peter N Ver Lee; Philip A MacCarthy; Bernard De Bruyne Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-05-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: M L Ladenheim; B H Pollock; A Rozanski; D S Berman; H M Staniloff; J S Forrester; G A Diamond Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1986-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Salvador Borges-Neto; Linda K Shaw; Robert H Tuttle; John H Alexander; William T Smith; Marianna Chambless; R Edward Coleman; Robert A Harrington; Robert M Califf Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-01-15 Impact factor: 2.778
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
Authors: John J Mahmarian; Leif E Peterson; Jiaqiong Xu; Manuel D Cerqueira; Ami E Iskandrian; Timothy M Bateman; Gregory S Thomas; Faisal Nabi Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Vineet K Dandekar; Michael A Bauml; Andrew W Ertel; Carolyn Dickens; Rosalia C Gonzalez; Afshin Farzaneh-Far Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Siddique A Abbasi; Andrew Ertel; Ravi V Shah; Vineet Dandekar; Jaehoon Chung; Geetha Bhat; Ankit A Desai; Raymond Y Kwong; Afshin Farzaneh-Far Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 5.364