Quentin Brana1,2, Frédérique Thibault1, Maxime Courtehoux2, Gilles Metrard1, Maria Joao Ribeiro2, Denis Angoulvant3, Matthieu Bailly4. 1. Nuclear Medicine Department, CHR ORLEANS, 14 Avenue de l'Hôpital, 45100, Orleans, France. 2. Nuclear Medicine Department, CHRU TOURS, Tours, France. 3. Cardiology Department, CHRU TOURS & EA4245 T2i, Tours University, Tours, France. 4. Nuclear Medicine Department, CHR ORLEANS, 14 Avenue de l'Hôpital, 45100, Orleans, France. matthieu.bailly@chr-orleans.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regadenoson is a selective adenosine receptor agonist. It is currently unclear if the level of hyperemia differs between stress agents. We compared Myocardial Blood Flow (MBF) and Myocardial Flow Reserve (MFR) response on CZT-SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (MPI) to evaluate if dipyridamole and regadenoson could induce the same level of hyperemia. METHODS: 228 patients with dynamic CZT-SPECT MPI were retrospectively analyzed (66 patients stressed with regadenoson and 162 with dipyridamole) in terms of MBF and MFR. To rule out confounding factors, two groups of 41 patients were matched for clinical characteristics in a sub-analysis, excluding high cardiovascular risk patients. RESULTS: Overall stress MBF was higher in regadenoson patients (1.71 ± 0.73 vs. 1.44 ± 0.55 mL·min-1·g-1 for regadenoson and dipyridamole, respectively, p < .05). However, when confounding factors were ruled out, stress MBF (1.57 ± 0.56 vs. 1.61 ± 0.62 mL·min-1·g-1 for dipyridamole and regadenoson, respectively, p = .88) and MFR (2.62 ± 0.77 vs. 2.46 ± 0.76 for dipyridamole and regadenoson, respectively, p = .40) were not different between regadenoson and dipyridamole. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that dipyridamole and regadenoson induce equivalent hyperemia in dynamic SPECT with similar stress MBF and MFR in comparable patients.
BACKGROUND: Regadenoson is a selective adenosine receptor agonist. It is currently unclear if the level of hyperemia differs between stress agents. We compared Myocardial Blood Flow (MBF) and Myocardial Flow Reserve (MFR) response on CZT-SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (MPI) to evaluate if dipyridamole and regadenoson could induce the same level of hyperemia. METHODS: 228 patients with dynamic CZT-SPECT MPI were retrospectively analyzed (66 patients stressed with regadenoson and 162 with dipyridamole) in terms of MBF and MFR. To rule out confounding factors, two groups of 41 patients were matched for clinical characteristics in a sub-analysis, excluding high cardiovascular risk patients. RESULTS: Overall stress MBF was higher in regadenoson patients (1.71 ± 0.73 vs. 1.44 ± 0.55 mL·min-1·g-1 for regadenoson and dipyridamole, respectively, p < .05). However, when confounding factors were ruled out, stress MBF (1.57 ± 0.56 vs. 1.61 ± 0.62 mL·min-1·g-1 for dipyridamole and regadenoson, respectively, p = .88) and MFR (2.62 ± 0.77 vs. 2.46 ± 0.76 for dipyridamole and regadenoson, respectively, p = .40) were not different between regadenoson and dipyridamole. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that dipyridamole and regadenoson induce equivalent hyperemia in dynamic SPECT with similar stress MBF and MFR in comparable patients.
Authors: Robert Lee Page; Patrice Spurck; Jacquelyn L Bainbridge; Julie Michalek; Robert A Quaife Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Fahad M Iqbal; Fadi G Hage; Ali Ahmed; Phillip J Dean; Saleem Raslan; Jaekyeong Heo; Ami E Iskandrian Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-10
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: Brian R Leaker; B O'Connor; Trevor T Hansel; Peter J Barnes; Lixen Meng; Vandana S Mathur; Hsiao D Lieu Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2008-04-14 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: John J Mahmarian; Manuel D Cerqueira; Ami E Iskandrian; Timothy M Bateman; Gregory S Thomas; Robert C Hendel; Lemuel A Moye; Ann W Olmsted Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-08
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: Edward P Ficaro; Venkatesh L Murthy; Jennifer M Renaud; Alexis Poitrasson-Rivière; Tomoe Hagio; Jonathan B Moody; Liliana Arida-Moody Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 3.872
Authors: Piotr J Slomka; Jonathan B Moody; Robert J H Miller; Jennifer M Renaud; Edward P Ficaro; Ernest V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Matthieu Bailly; Frédérique Thibault; Maxime Courtehoux; Gilles Metrard; Denis Angoulvant; Maria Joao Ribeiro Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2021-06-04