Sara Abram1, Adelaide M Arruda-Olson2, Christopher G Scott3, Patricia A Pellikka2, Vuyisile T Nkomo2, Jae K Oh2, Alberto Milan4, Robert B McCully5. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA Department of Medical Sciences, University Hospital S. Giovanni Battista, University of Torino, Turin, Italy. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. 3. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Medical Sciences, University Hospital S. Giovanni Battista, University of Torino, Turin, Italy. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA mccully.robert@mayo.edu.
Abstract
AIMS: Blood pressure (BP) responses during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) have not been systematically studied. Consequently, it is not known what constitutes a normal or an abnormal BP response to dobutamine stress. We sought to define the typical BP response during DSE of patients not known to have cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 24 134 patients who underwent DSE from November 2003 to December 2012 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 2968 were selected for inclusion in this retrospective study. Excluded were patients with a history of hypertension, diabetes, or coronary artery disease, and those taking vasoactive medications. Patients who had baseline and/or stress-induced wall motion abnormalities were also excluded. The distribution of the study population's BP responses during DSE was Gaussian; we defined cut-point values for normative BP responses at 2 SD for each decade of age and for the whole study population. During DSE, systolic BP (SBP) increased from baseline to peak stress (Δ +2.9 ± 24 mmHg, P < 0.0001) and diastolic BP (DBP) decreased (Δ -7.4 ± 14 mmHg). BP changes were age and sex dependent; men and younger patients had greater ΔSBP and lesser ΔDBP, compared with women and older patients. Patients who received atropine had higher peak BP values than patients who did not receive atropine, due to greater ΔSBP (+7.4 ± 26 vs. -0.5 ± 22 mmHg, P < 0.0001) and lesser ΔDBP (-4 ± 14 vs. -9.7 ± 12 mmHg, P < 0.0001). This atropine effect was present in men and women, and was more pronounced in younger patients. The normative peak SBP values ranged from 82 to 182 mmHg. CONCLUSION: BP responses during DSE vary and depend on patients' age, gender, and the use of atropine. We describe the typical BP responses seen during DSE and report normative reference values, which can be used for defining normal and abnormal BP responses to dobutamine stress. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Blood pressure (BP) responses during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) have not been systematically studied. Consequently, it is not known what constitutes a normal or an abnormal BP response to dobutamine stress. We sought to define the typical BP response during DSE of patients not known to have cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 24 134 patients who underwent DSE from November 2003 to December 2012 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 2968 were selected for inclusion in this retrospective study. Excluded were patients with a history of hypertension, diabetes, or coronary artery disease, and those taking vasoactive medications. Patients who had baseline and/or stress-induced wall motion abnormalities were also excluded. The distribution of the study population's BP responses during DSE was Gaussian; we defined cut-point values for normative BP responses at 2 SD for each decade of age and for the whole study population. During DSE, systolic BP (SBP) increased from baseline to peak stress (Δ +2.9 ± 24 mmHg, P < 0.0001) and diastolic BP (DBP) decreased (Δ -7.4 ± 14 mmHg). BP changes were age and sex dependent; men and younger patients had greater ΔSBP and lesser ΔDBP, compared with women and older patients. Patients who received atropine had higher peak BP values than patients who did not receive atropine, due to greater ΔSBP (+7.4 ± 26 vs. -0.5 ± 22 mmHg, P < 0.0001) and lesser ΔDBP (-4 ± 14 vs. -9.7 ± 12 mmHg, P < 0.0001). This atropine effect was present in men and women, and was more pronounced in younger patients. The normative peak SBP values ranged from 82 to 182 mmHg. CONCLUSION: BP responses during DSE vary and depend on patients' age, gender, and the use of atropine. We describe the typical BP responses seen during DSE and report normative reference values, which can be used for defining normal and abnormal BP responses to dobutamine stress. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Giuseppe Mancia; Robert Fagard; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Josep Redon; Alberto Zanchetti; Michael Böhm; Thierry Christiaens; Renata Cifkova; Guy De Backer; Anna Dominiczak; Maurizio Galderisi; Diederick E Grobbee; Tiny Jaarsma; Paulus Kirchhof; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Stephane Laurent; Athanasios J Manolis; Peter M Nilsson; Luis Miguel Ruilope; Roland E Schmieder; Per Anton Sirnes; Peter Sleight; Margus Viigimaa; Bernard Waeber; Faiez Zannad Journal: Blood Press Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 2.835
Authors: L H Ling; P A Pellikka; D W Mahoney; J K Oh; R B McCully; V L Roger; J B Seward Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: C H Attenhofer; P A Pellikka; J K Oh; V L Roger; R B McCully; C Shub; J B Seward Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: M A Quinones; A D Waggoner; L A Reduto; J G Nelson; J B Young; W L Winters; L G Ribeiro; R R Miller Journal: Circulation Date: 1981-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A Elhendy; M L Geleijnse; R T van Domburg; P R Nierop; D Poldermans; J J Bax; F J TenCate; Y F Nosir; M M Ibrahim; J R Roelandt Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1997-12-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Elena Biagini; Abdou Elhendy; Jeroen J Bax; Vittoria Rizzello; Arend F L Schinkel; Ron T van Domburg; Miklos D Kertai; Boudewijn J Krenning; Manolis Bountioukos; Claudio Rapezzi; Angelo Branzi; Maarten L Simoons; Don Poldermans Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-01-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Sara Abram; Adelaide M Arruda-Olson; Christopher G Scott; Patricia A Pellikka; Vuyisile T Nkomo; Jae K Oh; Alberto Milan; Mohamed M Abidian; Robert B McCully Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Anna C Crouch; Paige E Castle; Lauryn N FitzGerald; Ulrich M Scheven; Joan M Greve Journal: Int J Hyperthermia Date: 2019 Impact factor: 3.914
Authors: Paige E Castle; Ulrich M Scheven; A Colleen Crouch; Amos A Cao; Craig J Goergen; Joan M Greve Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-10-06 Impact factor: 4.813