BACKGROUND Adenosine is a coronary hyperemic agent used to measure invasive fractional flow reserve(FFR)of intermediate severity coronary stenosis.AIM To compare FFR assessment using adenosine with an alternate hypere...BACKGROUND Adenosine is a coronary hyperemic agent used to measure invasive fractional flow reserve(FFR)of intermediate severity coronary stenosis.AIM To compare FFR assessment using adenosine with an alternate hyperemic agent,regadenoson.METHODS PubMed,Google Scholar,CINAHL and Cochrane databases were queried for studies comparing adenosine and regadenoson for assessment of FFR.Data on FFR,correlation coefficient and adverse events from the selected studies were extracted and analyzed by means of random effects model.Two tailed P-value less than 0.05 was considered significant.Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 test.RESULTS Five studies with 248 patients were included in the final analysis.All included patients and coronary lesions underwent FFR assessment using both adenosine and regadenoson.There was no significant mean difference between FFR measurement by the two agents[odds ratio(OR)=-0.00;95%confidence interval(CI):(-0.02)-0.01,P=0.88].The cumulative correlation coefficient was 0.98(0.96-0.99,P<0.01).Three of five studies reported time to FFR with cumulative results favoring regadenoson(mean difference 34.31 s;25.14-43.48 s,P<0.01).Risk of adverse events was higher with adenosine compared to regadenoson(OR=2.39;95%CI:1.22-4.67,P=0.01),which most commonly included bradycardia and hypotension.Vast majority of the adverse events associated with both agents were transient.CONCLUSION The performance of regadenoson in inducing maximal hyperemia was comparable to that of adenosine.There was excellent correlation between the FFR measurements by both the agents.The use of adenosine,was however associated with higher risk of adverse events and longer time to FFR compared to regadenoson.展开更多
Purpose: Regadenoson (REG) is currently becoming the stress agent of choice in patients undergoing pharmacologic single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). However, in patients with left bundle branch block (...Purpose: Regadenoson (REG) is currently becoming the stress agent of choice in patients undergoing pharmacologic single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). However, in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and ventricular paced rhythm (VPR), hesitation exists amongst clinicians to use REG-SPECT due to the concern that the increased heart rate could cause false positive SPECT results. We sought to evaluate the comparability of A-SPECT and REG-SPECT in patients with LBBB and VPR. Methods: Retrospective study of 30 patients who served as their own controls. All 30 patients who underwent REG-SPECT (Grp 1) were compared to their prior A-SPECT (Grp 2) done within two years prior to REG-SPECT. Heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) parameters, ECG, stress perfusion and gated variables, SPECT ischemia, and side-effects were evaluated. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Grp 1 and Grp 2 were comparable in hemodynamic parameters with increase in HR and decrease in systolic and diastolic BP with administration of adenosine and REG stress agents. However, there were no significant differences found in hemodynamic parameters and II degree AV block between the groups. All normal A-SPECT were found to be normal with REG-SPECT. No differences could be found between the two groups among SPECT parameters. Muscle pain was significantly higher in REG (10.0% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.083) and so was the use of aminophylline (16.7% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.025) to relieve the side-effect. Conclusion: REG-SPECT can be administered in patients with LBBB and VPR patients based on favorable and comparable hemodynamic responses and arrhythmia occurrences to A-SPECT. REG-SPECT can also be used for adequate interpretation of presence or absence of SPECT ischemia particularly in the LAD territory without any concern for false positive perfusion defects.展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND Adenosine is a coronary hyperemic agent used to measure invasive fractional flow reserve(FFR)of intermediate severity coronary stenosis.AIM To compare FFR assessment using adenosine with an alternate hyperemic agent,regadenoson.METHODS PubMed,Google Scholar,CINAHL and Cochrane databases were queried for studies comparing adenosine and regadenoson for assessment of FFR.Data on FFR,correlation coefficient and adverse events from the selected studies were extracted and analyzed by means of random effects model.Two tailed P-value less than 0.05 was considered significant.Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 test.RESULTS Five studies with 248 patients were included in the final analysis.All included patients and coronary lesions underwent FFR assessment using both adenosine and regadenoson.There was no significant mean difference between FFR measurement by the two agents[odds ratio(OR)=-0.00;95%confidence interval(CI):(-0.02)-0.01,P=0.88].The cumulative correlation coefficient was 0.98(0.96-0.99,P<0.01).Three of five studies reported time to FFR with cumulative results favoring regadenoson(mean difference 34.31 s;25.14-43.48 s,P<0.01).Risk of adverse events was higher with adenosine compared to regadenoson(OR=2.39;95%CI:1.22-4.67,P=0.01),which most commonly included bradycardia and hypotension.Vast majority of the adverse events associated with both agents were transient.CONCLUSION The performance of regadenoson in inducing maximal hyperemia was comparable to that of adenosine.There was excellent correlation between the FFR measurements by both the agents.The use of adenosine,was however associated with higher risk of adverse events and longer time to FFR compared to regadenoson.
文摘Purpose: Regadenoson (REG) is currently becoming the stress agent of choice in patients undergoing pharmacologic single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). However, in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and ventricular paced rhythm (VPR), hesitation exists amongst clinicians to use REG-SPECT due to the concern that the increased heart rate could cause false positive SPECT results. We sought to evaluate the comparability of A-SPECT and REG-SPECT in patients with LBBB and VPR. Methods: Retrospective study of 30 patients who served as their own controls. All 30 patients who underwent REG-SPECT (Grp 1) were compared to their prior A-SPECT (Grp 2) done within two years prior to REG-SPECT. Heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) parameters, ECG, stress perfusion and gated variables, SPECT ischemia, and side-effects were evaluated. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Grp 1 and Grp 2 were comparable in hemodynamic parameters with increase in HR and decrease in systolic and diastolic BP with administration of adenosine and REG stress agents. However, there were no significant differences found in hemodynamic parameters and II degree AV block between the groups. All normal A-SPECT were found to be normal with REG-SPECT. No differences could be found between the two groups among SPECT parameters. Muscle pain was significantly higher in REG (10.0% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.083) and so was the use of aminophylline (16.7% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.025) to relieve the side-effect. Conclusion: REG-SPECT can be administered in patients with LBBB and VPR patients based on favorable and comparable hemodynamic responses and arrhythmia occurrences to A-SPECT. REG-SPECT can also be used for adequate interpretation of presence or absence of SPECT ischemia particularly in the LAD territory without any concern for false positive perfusion defects.
