Louise A E Brown1, Christopher E D Saunderson1, Arka Das1, Thomas Craven1, Eylem Levelt1, Kristopher D Knott2,3, Erica Dall'Armellina1, Hui Xue3, James C Moon2,3, John P Greenwood1, Peter Kellman1,2,3, Peter P Swoboda1, Sven Plein4. 1. Multidisciplinary Cardiovascular Research Centre (MCRC) & Biomedical Imaging Science Department, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. 2. The Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging Unit and The Inherited Cardiovascular Diseases Unit, Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, West Smithfield, London, UK. 3. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Multidisciplinary Cardiovascular Research Centre (MCRC) & Biomedical Imaging Science Department, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. s.plein@leeds.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adenosine stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is commonly used in the assessment of patients with suspected ischaemia. Accepted protocols recommend administration of adenosine at a dose of 140 µg/kg/min increased up to 210 µg/kg/min if required. Conventionally, adequate stress has been assessed using change in heart rate, however, recent studies have suggested that these peripheral measurements may not reflect hyperaemia and can be blunted, in particular, in patients with heart failure. This study looked to compare stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and haemodynamic response with different dosing regimens of adenosine during stress perfusion CMR in patients and healthy controls. METHODS: 20 healthy adult subjects were recruited as controls to compare 3 adenosine perfusion protocols: standard dose (140 µg/kg/min for 4 min), high dose (210 µg/kg/min for 4 min) and long dose (140 µg/kg/min for 8 min). 60 patients with either known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) or with heart failure and different degrees of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction underwent adenosine stress with standard and high dose adenosine within the same scan. All studies were carried out on a 3 T CMR scanner. Quantitative global myocardial perfusion and haemodynamic response were compared between doses. RESULTS: In healthy controls, no significant difference was seen in stress MBF between the 3 protocols. In patients with known or suspected CAD, and those with heart failure and mild systolic impairment (LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 40%) no significant difference was seen in stress MBF between standard and high dose adenosine. In those with LVEF < 40%, there was a significantly higher stress MBF following high dose adenosine compared to standard dose (1.33 ± 0.46 vs 1.10 ± 0.47 ml/g/min, p = 0.004). Non-responders to standard dose adenosine (defined by an increase in heart rate (HR) < 10 bpm) had a significantly higher stress HR following high dose (75 ± 12 vs 70 ± 14 bpm, p = 0.034), but showed no significant difference in stress MBF. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing adenosine dose from 140 to 210 µg/kg/min leads to increased stress MBF in patients with significantly impaired LV systolic function. Adenosine dose in clinical perfusion assessment may need to be increased in these patients.
BACKGROUND:Adenosinestress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is commonly used in the assessment of patients with suspected ischaemia. Accepted protocols recommend administration of adenosine at a dose of 140 µg/kg/min increased up to 210 µg/kg/min if required. Conventionally, adequate stress has been assessed using change in heart rate, however, recent studies have suggested that these peripheral measurements may not reflect hyperaemia and can be blunted, in particular, in patients with heart failure. This study looked to compare stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and haemodynamic response with different dosing regimens of adenosine during stress perfusion CMR in patients and healthy controls. METHODS: 20 healthy adult subjects were recruited as controls to compare 3 adenosine perfusion protocols: standard dose (140 µg/kg/min for 4 min), high dose (210 µg/kg/min for 4 min) and long dose (140 µg/kg/min for 8 min). 60 patients with either known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) or with heart failure and different degrees of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction underwent adenosinestress with standard and high dose adenosine within the same scan. All studies were carried out on a 3 T CMR scanner. Quantitative global myocardial perfusion and haemodynamic response were compared between doses. RESULTS: In healthy controls, no significant difference was seen in stress MBF between the 3 protocols. In patients with known or suspected CAD, and those with heart failure and mild systolic impairment (LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 40%) no significant difference was seen in stress MBF between standard and high dose adenosine. In those with LVEF < 40%, there was a significantly higher stress MBF following high dose adenosine compared to standard dose (1.33 ± 0.46 vs 1.10 ± 0.47 ml/g/min, p = 0.004). Non-responders to standard dose adenosine (defined by an increase in heart rate (HR) < 10 bpm) had a significantly higher stress HR following high dose (75 ± 12 vs 70 ± 14 bpm, p = 0.034), but showed no significant difference in stress MBF. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing adenosine dose from 140 to 210 µg/kg/min leads to increased stress MBF in patients with significantly impaired LV systolic function. Adenosine dose in clinical perfusion assessment may need to be increased in these patients.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rakesh K Mishra; Sharmila Dorbala; Giridhar Logsetty; Alita Hassan; Therese Heinonen; Heinrich R Schelbert; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Theodoros D Karamitsos; Ntobeko A B Ntusi; Jane M Francis; Cameron J Holloway; Saul G Myerson; Stefan Neubauer Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Alice Hosking; Marinos Koulouroudias; Filip Zemrak; James C Moon; Alexia Rossi; Aaron Lee; Michael R Barnes; Redha Boubertakh; Francesca Pugliese; Charlotte Manisty; Steffen E Petersen Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Charlotte Manisty; David P Ripley; Anna S Herrey; Gabriella Captur; Timothy C Wong; Steffen E Petersen; Sven Plein; Charles Peebles; Erik B Schelbert; John P Greenwood; James C Moon Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Dirkjan Kuijpers; Niek H Prakken; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Paul R M van Dijkman; Pim van der Harst; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Louise A E Brown; Sebastian C Onciul; David A Broadbent; Kerryanne Johnson; Graham J Fent; James R J Foley; Pankaj Garg; Pei G Chew; Kristopher Knott; Erica Dall'Armellina; Peter P Swoboda; Hui Xue; John P Greenwood; James C Moon; Peter Kellman; Sven Plein Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Andreas Seraphim; Kristopher D Knott; Joao B Augusto; Katia Menacho; Sara Tyebally; Benjamin Dowsing; Sanjeev Bhattacharyya; Leon J Menezes; Daniel A Jones; Rakesh Uppal; James C Moon; Charlotte Manisty Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-12-23
Authors: Slomi Gupta; Parimala Prasanna Simha; Naveen G Singh; P S Nagaraja; Ashita Barthur; Kartik Ganga; V Prabhakar Journal: Ann Card Anaesth Date: 2022 Jul-Sep