Literature DB >> 27659457

Prognostic significance of blood pressure response during vasodilator stress Rb-82 positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging.

Bradley Witbrodt1, Abhinav Goyal2, Anita A Kelkar2, Sharmila Dorbala3, Benjamin J W Chow4, Marcelo F Di Carli3, Brent A Williams5, Michael E Merhige6, Daniel S Berman7, Guido Germano7, Robert S Beanlands4, James K Min8, Punitha Arasaratnam4, Masoud Sadreddini4, Marjolein Lidwine van Velthuijsen4, Leslee J Shaw2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A drop in blood pressure (BP) or blunted BP response is an established high-risk marker during exercise myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI); however, data are sparse regarding the prognostic value of BP response in patients undergoing vasodilator stress rubidium-82 (Rb-82) Positron Emission Tomography (PET) MPI. METHODS AND
RESULTS: From the PET Prognosis Multicenter Registry, a cohort of 3413 patients underwent vasodilator stress Rb-82 PET MPI with dipyridamole or adenosine. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression to analyze the association with mortality of four BP variables: stress minus rest systolic BP (∆SBP), stress minus rest diastolic BP (∆DBP), resting systolic BP (rSBP), and resting diastolic BP (rDBP). Covariates that had univariate P values <.10 were entered into the multivariable model. After median 1.7 years follow-up, 270 patients died. In univariate analyses, ∆SBP (P = .082), rSBP (P = .008), and rDBP (P < .001) were of potential prognostic value (P < .10), but ∆DBP was not (P = .96). After adjustment for other clinical and MPI variables, ∆SBP no longer independently predicted mortality (P = .082); only lower rSBP (P = .026) and lower rDBP (P = .045) remained independently prognostic.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing vasodilator stress MPI, only lower resting BP is an independent predictor of mortality along with other clinical and MPI variables; BP response does not appear to add to risk stratification in these patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Blood pressure response; myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI); positron emission tomography (PET); prognosis; vasodilator stress

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27659457     DOI: 10.1007/s12350-016-0569-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol        ISSN: 1071-3581            Impact factor:   5.952


  21 in total

1.  Ill-defined and multiple causes on death certificates--a study of misclassification in mortality statistics.

Authors:  M D'Amico; E Agozzino; A Biagino; A Simonetti; P Marinelli
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Racial misclassification and disparities in cardiovascular disease among American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Authors:  Dorothy A Rhoades
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2005-03-15       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  Impact of myocardial perfusion imaging with PET and (82)Rb on downstream invasive procedure utilization, costs, and outcomes in coronary disease management.

Authors:  Michael E Merhige; William J Breen; Victoria Shelton; Teresa Houston; Brian J D'Arcy; Anthony F Perna
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  Misclassification of coronary heart disease in mortality statistics. Evidence from the WHO-MONICA Ghent-Charleroi Study in Belgium.

Authors:  S De Henauw; P de Smet; W Aelvoet; M Kornitzer; G De Backer
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy.

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

6.  A blunted heart rate response to regadenoson is an independent prognostic indicator in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Fadi G Hage; Phillip Dean; Fahad Iqbal; Jaekyeong Heo; Ami E Iskandrian
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2011-07-22       Impact factor: 5.952

7.  Incremental prognostic value of gated Rb-82 positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging over clinical variables and rest LVEF.

Authors:  Sharmila Dorbala; Rory Hachamovitch; Zelmira Curillova; Deepak Thomas; Divya Vangala; Raymond Y Kwong; Marcelo F Di Carli
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2009-07

8.  Hemodynamic responses and adverse effects associated with adenosine and dipyridamole pharmacologic stress testing: a comparison in 2,000 patients.

Authors:  D L Johnston; J R Daley; D O Hodge; M R Hopfenspirger; R J Gibbons
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 7.616

9.  Differences in heart rate response to adenosine and regadenoson in patients with and without diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Fadi G Hage; Jaekyeong Heo; Billy Franks; Luiz Belardinelli; Brent Blackburn; Whedy Wang; Ami E Iskandrian
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2009-03-06       Impact factor: 4.749

10.  Regadenoson and adenosine are equivalent vasodilators and are superior than dipyridamole- a study of first pass quantitative perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

Authors:  Sujethra Vasu; W Patricia Bandettini; Li-Yueh Hsu; Peter Kellman; Steve Leung; Christine Mancini; Sujata M Shanbhag; Joel Wilson; Oscar Julian Booker; Andrew E Arai
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 5.364

View more
  3 in total

1.  Indirect evidence of sympathetic stimulation by regadenoson.

Authors:  G Ross Farris; Fadi G Hage; Vineet Kumar; Ami E Iskandrian
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 5.952

2.  The blood pressure response to vasodilator stress does not provide independent prognostic information.

Authors:  Eliana Reyes; Fadi G Hage
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 3.  Review of cardiovascular imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology in 2017. Part 2 of 2: Myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Fadi G Hage; Wael A AlJaroudi
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 5.952

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.