Frey SM, Honegger U, Clerc OF, Caobelli F, Haaf P, Zellweger MJ. Left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial blood flow and hemodynamic variables in adenosine and regadenoson vasodilator 82-Rubidium PET.
J Nucl Cardiol 2022;
29:921-933. [PMID:
34386864 DOI:
10.1007/s12350-021-02729-0]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2021] [Revised: 04/16/2021] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
AIMS
In most Rubidium-(Rb)-positron emission tomography (PET) studies, dipyridamole was used as vasodilator. The aim was to evaluate vasodilator PET left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), myocardial blood flow (MBF), hemodynamics, and the influence of adenosine and regadenoson on these variables.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Consecutive patients (N = 2299) with prior coronary artery disease (CAD) or no prior CAD undergoing adenosine/regadenoson 82Rb-PET were studied and compared according to CAD status and normal/abnormal PET (summed stress score 0-3 vs. ≥4). Rest and stress LVEF differed significantly depending on CAD status and scan results. In patients with no prior CAD, rest/stress LVEF were 68% and 72%, in patients with prior CAD 60% and 63%. LVEF during stress increased 5 ± 6% in normal compared to 1 ± 8% in abnormal PET (P<0.001). Global rest myocardial blood flow(rMBF), stress MBF(sMBF) and myocardial flow reserve (sMBF/rMBF) were significantly higher in no prior CAD patients compared to prior CAD patients(1.3 ± 0.5, 3.3 ± 0.9, 2.6 ± 0.8 and 1.2 ± 0.4, 2.6 ± 0.8, 2.4 ± 0.8 ml/g/min, respectively, P<0.001) and in normal versus abnormal scans, irrespective of CAD status(no prior CAD: 1.4 ± 0.5, 3.5 ± 0.8, 2.8 ± 0.8 and 1.2 ± 0.8, 2.5 ± 0.8, 2.2 ± 0.7; prior CAD: 1.3 ± 0.4, 3.1 ± 0.8, 2.7 ± 0.8 and 1.1 ± 0.4, 2.3 ± 0.7, 2.2 ± 0.7 ml/g/min, respectively, P<0.001). LVEF and hemodynamic values were similar for adenosine and regadenoson stress. Stress LVEF ≥70% excluded relevant ischemia (≥10%) with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 94% (CI 92-95%).
CONCLUSIONS
Rest/stress LVEF, LVEF reserve and MBF values are lower in abnormal compared to normal scans. Adenosine and regadenoson seem to have similar effect on stress LVEF, MBF and hemodynamics. A stress LVEF ≥70% has a high NPV to exclude relevant ischemia.
Collapse