Justin A Edward1, John H Lee2, Christopher J White2,3, Daniel P Morin2,3, Robert Bober2,3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, New Orleans, Louisiana. 3. Ochsner Clinical School, Queensland University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Small studies have shown that adenosine is equivalent to regadenoson when obtaining coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements. A study that also evaluates time and safety of aminophylline reversal of regadenoson effects has not been presented. HYPOTHESIS: Reversal of regadenoson with aminophylline is safe and equivalent to adenosine for FFR measurements. METHODS: Forty-six consecutive patients who underwent clinically indicated FFRs at the time of coronary angiography were enrolled between 4/2012 and 5/2014. Each patient had FFR measured using adenosine 140 mcg/kg/min IV, and following return to baseline, FFR was measured using regadenoson 400 mcg IV, which then was reversed with aminophylline 150 mg IV. Time to baseline hemodynamics was measured. Agreement between the two assessments was compared using linear regression. RESULTS: FFR results were similar with both agents (R2 = 0.935, P < 0.0001). Also, using the 0.80 cutoff for significantly depressed FFR, there was no divergence regarding studies' significance. After aminophylline reversal of regadenoson, hemodynamics returned to baseline in 111 ± 71 seconds. There were no unexpected side effects or complications. CONCLUSIONS: For FFR measurement, regadenoson and adenosine are equivalent hyperemic agents. Regadenoson with aminophylline reversal may be considered as an alternative to adenosine for FFR measurements.
BACKGROUND: Small studies have shown that adenosine is equivalent to regadenoson when obtaining coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements. A study that also evaluates time and safety of aminophylline reversal of regadenoson effects has not been presented. HYPOTHESIS: Reversal of regadenoson with aminophylline is safe and equivalent to adenosine for FFR measurements. METHODS: Forty-six consecutive patients who underwent clinically indicated FFRs at the time of coronary angiography were enrolled between 4/2012 and 5/2014. Each patient had FFR measured using adenosine 140 mcg/kg/min IV, and following return to baseline, FFR was measured using regadenoson 400 mcg IV, which then was reversed with aminophylline 150 mg IV. Time to baseline hemodynamics was measured. Agreement between the two assessments was compared using linear regression. RESULTS: FFR results were similar with both agents (R2 = 0.935, P < 0.0001). Also, using the 0.80 cutoff for significantly depressed FFR, there was no divergence regarding studies' significance. After aminophylline reversal of regadenoson, hemodynamics returned to baseline in 111 ± 71 seconds. There were no unexpected side effects or complications. CONCLUSIONS: For FFR measurement, regadenoson and adenosine are equivalent hyperemic agents. Regadenoson with aminophylline reversal may be considered as an alternative to adenosine for FFR measurements.
Authors: Naga V Pothineni; Nishi N Shah; Yogita Rochlani; Ramez Nairooz; Sameer Raina; Massoud A Leesar; Barry F Uretsky; Abdul Hakeem Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Matthias Götberg; Evald H Christiansen; Ingibjörg J Gudmundsdottir; Lennart Sandhall; Mikael Danielewicz; Lars Jakobsen; Sven-Erik Olsson; Patrik Öhagen; Hans Olsson; Elmir Omerovic; Fredrik Calais; Pontus Lindroos; Michael Maeng; Tim Tödt; Dimitrios Venetsanos; Stefan K James; Amra Kåregren; Margareta Nilsson; Jörg Carlsson; Dario Hauer; Jens Jensen; Ann-Charlotte Karlsson; Georgios Panayi; David Erlinge; Ole Fröbert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael Salerno; Angela Taylor; Yang Yang; Sujith Kuruvilla; Michael Ragosta; Craig H Meyer; Christopher M Kramer Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 7.792
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: N H Pijls; B De Bruyne; K Peels; P H Van Der Voort; H J Bonnier; J J Bartunek J Koolen; J J Koolen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-06-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Benjamin H Freed; Akhil Narang; Nicole M Bhave; Peter Czobor; Victor Mor-Avi; Emily R Zaran; Kristen M Turner; Kevin P Cavanaugh; Sonal Chandra; Sara M Tanaka; Michael H Davidson; Roberto M Lang; Amit R Patel Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2013-12-21 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Jose V Monmeneu Menadas; Maria P García Gonzalez; Maria P Lopez-Lereu; Laura Higueras Ortega; Alicia M Maceira Gonzalez Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-07-31 Impact factor: 2.357