Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An assessment of the safety, hemodynamic response, and diagnostic accuracy of commonly used vasodilator stressors in patients with severe aortic stenosis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology Aims and scope

Abstract

Background

Increasing numbers of patients are undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, which often involves assessment of coronary artery disease ischemic burden. The safety and diagnostic accuracy of vasodilator stress agents in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) has not been established.

Methods

Patients with severe AS (valve area <1 cm2) on echocardiography who underwent vasodilator stress SPECT MPI at two centers were identified. Patients with aortic valve intervention prior to MPI or who underwent concurrent exercise during stress testing were excluded. AS patients were matched to controls without AS based on age, gender, BMI, ejection fraction, and stress agent. Symptoms, serious adverse events, hemodynamic response, and correlation to invasive angiography were assessed.

Results

A total of 95 cases were identified with 45% undergoing regadenoson, 31% dipyridamole, and 24% adenosine stress. A significant change in systolic blood pressure (BP), cases vs controls, was observed with adenosine [−17.9 ± 20.1 vs −2.6 ± 24.9 P = .03)], with a trend toward significance with regadenoson [−16.8 ± 20.3 vs −9.4 ± 17.9 (P = .08)] and dipyridamole [−17.8 ± 20.6 vs -9.0 ± 12.1 (P = .05)]. The change in heart rate was significantly different only for adenosine [5.3 ± 16.8 vs 14.2 ± 10.8 (P = .04)]. Overall, 45% of cases vs 24% of controls (P = .004) had a >20 mmHg decrease in systolic BP. Age, BMI, and resting systolic BP were related to a >20 mmHg decrease in systolic BP on univariate analysis, although only higher resting systolic BP was a predictor on multivariate analysis. In 33 patients who underwent angiography, the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of vasodilator stress MPI was 77%, 69%, and 73%, respectively. No serious adverse events occurred in the severe AS patients.

Conclusion

Severe AS patients are more likely to have a hemodynamically significant decrease in systolic BP with vasodilator stress. There were no serious adverse events in this severe AS cohort with good diagnostic performance of MPI compared to angiography.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AS:

Aortic stenosis

CAD:

Coronary artery disease

CABG:

Coronary artery bypass grafting

PCI:

Percutaneous coronary intervention

TAVR:

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement

SPECT:

Single photon emission computed tomography

PET:

Positron emission computed tomography

MPI:

Myocardial perfusion imaging

LVEF:

Left ventricular ejection fraction

MI:

Myocardial infarction

CHF:

Congestive heart failure

References

  1. Maganti K, Rigolin VH, Sarano ME, Bonow RO. Valvular heart disease: diagnosis and management. Mayo Clin Proc 2010;85:483-500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Exadactylos N, Sugrue DD, Oakley CM. Prevalence of coronary artery disease in patients with isolated aortic valve stenosis. Br Heart J 1984;51:121-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Green SJ, Pizzarello RA, Padmanabhan VT, Ong LY, Hall MH, Tortolani AJ. Relation of angina pectoris to coronary artery disease in aortic valve stenosis. Am J Cardiol 1985;55:1063-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rapp AH, Hillis LD, Lange RA, Cigarroa JE. Prevalence of coronary artery disease in patients with aortic stenosis with and without angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 2001;87:1216-7 A7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ortlepp JR, Schmitz F, Bozoglu T, Hanrath P, Hoffmann R. Cardiovascular risk factors in patients with aortic stenosis predict prevalence of coronary artery disease but not of aortic stenosis: an angiographic pair matched case-control study. Heart 2003;89:1019-22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, Antunes MJ, Baron-Esquivias G, Baumgartner H, Borger MA, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J 2012;33:2451-96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, de Leon AC Jr, Faxon DP, Freed MD, et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing Committee to Revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease) developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:e1-148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Magne J, Lancellotti P, Pierard LA. Exercise testing in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7:188-99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1597-607.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cremer PC, Khalaf S, Lou J, Rodriguez L, Cerqueira MD, Jaber WA. Stress positron emission tomography is safe and can guide coronary revascularization in high-risk patients being considered for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Nucl Cardiol 2014;21:1001-10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Osnabrugge RL, Mylotte D, Head SJ, Van Mieghem NM, Nkomo VT, LeReun CM, et al. Aortic stenosis in the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:1002-12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Samuels B, Kiat H, Friedman JD, Berman DS. Adenosine pharmacologic stress myocardial perfusion tomographic imaging in patients with significant aortic stenosis. Diagnostic efficacy and comparison of clinical, hemodynamic and electrocardiographic variables with 100 age-matched control subjects. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;25:99-106.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Patsilinakos SP, Kranidis AI, Antonelis IP, Filippatos G, Houssianakou IK, Zamanis NI, et al. Detection of coronary artery disease in patients with severe aortic stenosis with noninvasive methods. Angiology 1999;50:309-17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Patsilinakos SP, Spanodimos S, Rontoyanni F, Kranidis A, Antonelis IP, Sotirellos K, et al. Adenosine stress myocardial perfusion tomographic imaging in patients with significant aortic stenosis. J Nucl Cardiol 2004;11:20-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Burgstahler C, Kunze M, Gawaz MP, Rasche V, Wohrle J, Hombach V, et al. Adenosine stress first pass perfusion for the detection of coronary artery disease in patients with aortic stenosis: a feasibility study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2008;24:195-200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rask P, Karp K, Edlund B, Eriksson P, Mooe T, Wiklund U. Computer-assisted evaluation of dipyridamole thallium-201 SPECT in patients with aortic stenosis. J Nucl Med 1994;35:983-8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Avakian SD, Grinberg M, Meneguetti JC, Ramires JA, Mansur AP. SPECT dipyridamole scintigraphy for detecting coronary artery disease in patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis. Int J Cardiol 2001;81:21-7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Demirkol MO, Yaymaci B, Debes H, Basaran Y, Turan F. Dipyridamole myocardial perfusion tomography in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Cardiology 2002;97:37-42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Henzlova MJ, Cerqueira MD, Hansen CL, Taillefer R, Yao SS. ASNC imaging guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures: stress protocols and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol 2009;16:331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Holly TA, Abbott BG, Al-Mallah M, Calnon DA, Cohen MC, DiFilippo FP, et al. Single photon-emission computed tomography. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:941-73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, Jacobs AK, Kaul S, Laskey WK, et al. Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. J Nucl Cardiol 2002;9:240-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ghosh S, Bogar L, Sabry A. Anaesthetic considerations for patients with severe aortic stenosis. In: Santavy P, editor. Aortic valve stenosis—current view on diagnostics and treatment. Rijeka: Croatia; 2011. p. 67-84.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Luo HC, Dimaano VL, Kembro JM, Hilser A, Hurtado-de-Mendoza D, Pozios I, et al. Exercise heart rates in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol 2015;115:1144-50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Efthimiadis GK, Giannakoulas G, Parcharidou DG, Pagourelias ED, Kouidi EJ, Spanos G, et al. Chronotropic incompetence and its relation to exercise intolerance in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Int J Cardiol 2011;153:179-84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Parker MW, Iskandar A, Limone B, Perugini A, Kim H, Jones C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of cardiac positron emission tomography versus single photon emission computed tomography for coronary artery disease: a bivariate meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;5:700-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Begg CB, Greenes RA. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics 1983;39:207-15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Fryar CD, Gu Q, Ogden CL. Anthropometric reference data for children and adults: United States, 2007-2010. Vital Health Stat 2012;11:1-48.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to acknowledge the help of Dr. Poojita Shivamurthy in data collection for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

All funding and support for this work came from within the Division of Cardiology at Hartford Hospital and Mount Sinai Hospital. There was no outside funding, grant or industry support. Dr. Duvall has received research grant support from Astellas Pharmaceuticals within the past 2 years.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cardiology, Hartford Hospital, 80 Seymour Street, Hartford, CT, 06102, USA

    Nasir Hussain MD, Waseem Chaudhry MD, Alan W. Ahlberg MA, Ahmed Elfar MD & William L. Duvall MD

  2. Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA

    Richard S. Amara MD & Ruwanthi Titano MD

  3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, MA, USA

    Matthew W. Parker MD

  4. Mount Sinai Heart, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA

    John A. Savino III MD & Milena J. Henzlova MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Nasir Hussain MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Waseem Chaudhry MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alan W. Ahlberg MA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard S. Amara MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ahmed Elfar MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthew W. Parker MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. John A. Savino III MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ruwanthi Titano MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Milena J. Henzlova MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. William L. Duvall MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William L. Duvall MD.

Additional information

See related editorial, doi:10.1007/s12350-016-0468-5.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hussain, N., Chaudhry, W., Ahlberg, A.W. et al. An assessment of the safety, hemodynamic response, and diagnostic accuracy of commonly used vasodilator stressors in patients with severe aortic stenosis. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 24, 1200–1213 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-016-0427-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-016-0427-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation