Current Cardiology Reports

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 16–24

Pharmacologic radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging

  • Sachin M. Navare
  • Athanasios Kapetanopoulos
  • Gary V. Heller
Article

Abstract

Pharmacologic stress testing with myocardial perfusion imaging has enabled patients who cannot complete adequate exercise to undergo diagnostic and prognostic evaluation for coronary artery disease. Pharmacologic stress agents belong to two groups: vasodilators (such as adenosine and dipyridamole), and inotropes (such as dobutamine). All have similar sensitivity (89%-91%) and specificity (78%-86%) for the diagnosis of coronary disease. For risk stratification, the risk of future cardiac events is related to the extent and severity of perfusion abnormalities. Pharmacologic stress testing permits risk stratification as early as 1 to 4 days following an acute myocardial infarction, and is superior to exercise stress testing in this regard. Similarly, it identifies patients at high risk for perioperative cardiac events prior to noncardiac surgery. This review summarizes the current evidence available regarding the diagnostic and prognostic use of pharmacologic stress testing.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Lette J, Tatum JL, Fraser S, et al.: Safety of dipyridamole testing in 73,806 patients: The Multicenter Dipyridamole Safety Study. J Nucl Cardiol 1995, 2:3–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ranhosky A, Kempthorne-Rowson J, and the Intravenous Dipyridamole Thallium Imaging Study Group.: The safety of intravenous dipyridamole thallium myocardial perfusion imaging. Circulation 1990, 81:1205–1209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cerqueira MD, Verani MS, Schwaiger M, et al.: Safety profile of adenosine stress perfusion imaging: results form the adenoscan multicenter trial registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994, 23:384–389.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elhendy A, Valkema R, van Domburg, et al.: Safety of dobutamine-atropine stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. J Nucl Med 1998, 39:1662–1666.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pennell DJ, Mavrogeni SI, Forbat SM, et al.: Adenosine combined with dynamic exercise for myocardial perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995, 25:1300–1309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thomas GS, Prill NV, Majmundar H, et al.: Treadmill exercise during adenosine infusion is safe, results in fewer adverse reactions, and improves myocardial perfusion image quality. J Nucl Cardiol 2000, 7:439–446.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jamil G, Ahlberg AW, Elliott MD, et al.: Impact of limited treadmill exercise on adenosine Tc-99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging in coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1999, 84:400–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stein L, Burt R, Oppenheim B, et al.: Symptom limited arm exercise increases detection of ischemia during dipyridamole tomographic thallium stress testing in patients with coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1995, 75:568–572.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sylver C, Beermann B, Jonzon B, Brandt R: Angina pectoris-like pain provoked by intravenous adenosine in healthy volunteers. BMJ 1986, 293:227–230.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhu YY, Lee W, Botvinick E, et al.: The clinical and pathophysiologic implications of pain, ST abnormalities and scintigraphic changes induced during dipyridamole infusion: their relationships to the peripheral hemodynamic response. Am Heart J 1988, 116:1071–1080.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Villanueva FS, Smith WH, Watson DD, Beller GA: ST-segment depression during dipyridamole infusion and its clinical, scintigraphic and hemodynamic correlates. Am J Cardiol 1992, 69:445–448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hays JT, Mahmarian JJ, Cochran AJ, Verani MS: Dobutamine thallium-201 tomography for evaluating patients with suspected coronary artery disease unable to undergo exercise or vasodilator pharmacologic stress testing. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993, 21:1583–1590.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Keefe JH, Barnhart CS, Bateman TM: Comparison of stress echocardiography and stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for diagnosing coronary artery disease and assessing its severity. Am J Cardiol 1995, 75:25D-34D.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taillefer R, Amyot R, Turpin S, et al.: Comparison between dipyridamole and adenosine as pharmacologic coronary vasodilators in detection of coronary artery disease with thallium 201 imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 1996, 3:204–211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DePuey EG, Rozanski A: Using gated technetium-99m-sestamibi to characterize fixed myocardial defects as infarct or artifact. J Nucl Med 1995, 36:952–955.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hansen CL, Crabbe D, Rubin S: Lower diagnostic accuracy of thallium-201 SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging in women: an effect of smaller chamber size. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996, 28:1214–1219.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taillefer R, DePuey EG, Udelson JE, et al.: Comparative diagnostic accuracy of Tl-201 and Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT imaging (perfusion and ECG-gated SPECT) in detecting coronary artery disease in women. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997, 29:69–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Amanullah AM, Kiat H, Frieman JD, Berman DS: Adenosine technetium — 99m-sestamibi myocardial perfusion SPECT in women: diagnostic efficacy in detection of coronary artery disease. J am Coll Cardiol 1996, 27:803–809.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Travin MI, Katz MS, Moulton AW, et al.: Accuracy of dipyridamole SPECT imaging in identifying individual coronary stenoses and multivessel disease in women versus men. J Nucl Cardiol 2000, 7:213–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Keefe JH, Bateman TM, Barnhart CS: Adenosine thallium- 201 is superior to exercise thallium-201 for detecting coronary artery disease in patients with left bundle-branch block. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993, 21:1332–1338.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burns RJ, Galligan L, Wright LM, et al.: Improved specificity of myocardial thallium-201 single-photon emission computed tomography in patients with left bundle branch block by dipyridamole. Am J Cardiol 1991, 68:504–508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shehata AR, Gillam LD, Mascitelli VA, et al.: Impact of acute propranolol administration on dobutamine- induced myocardial ischemia as evaluated by myocardial perfusion imaging and echocardiography. Am J Cardiol 1997, 80:268–272.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sharir T, Rabinowitz B, Livschitz S, et al.: Underestimation of extent and severity of coronary artery disease by dipyridamole stress thallium-201 single-photon emission computed tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging in patients taking anti-anginal drugs. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998, 31:1540–1546.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taillefer R, Lamargese I, Masood Y, et al.: Effect of acute beta blockade on dipyridamole-induced myocardial ischemia using 99m Tc sestamibi imaging. J Nucl Med 2002, 43:50P.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Donohue TJ, Miller DD, Bach RG, et al.: Correlation of poststenotic hyperemic coronary flow velocity and pressure with abnormal stress myocardial perfusion imaging in coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1996, 77:948–954.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kenneth KA: Prognostic value of thallium-201 myocardial perfusion imaging. A diagnostic tool comes of age. Circulation 1991, 83:363–381. The first detailed review of the available evidence on prognostic use of myocardial perfusion imaging, presented in a clear and objective manner.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Iskander S, Iskandrian AE: Risk assessment using single-photon emission computed tomographic technetium-99m sestamibi imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998, 32:57–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hendel RC, Layden JJ, Leppo JA: Prognostic value of dipyridamole thallium scintigraphy for evaluation of ischemic heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990, 15:109–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stratmann HG, Younis LT, Kong B: Prognostic value of dipyridamole thallium-201 scintigraphy in patients with stable chest pain. Am Heart J 1992, 123:317–323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kamal AM, Fattah AA, Pancholy S, et al.: Prognostic value of adenosine single-photon emission computed tomographic thallium imaging in medically treated patients with angiographic evidence of coronary disease. J Nucl Cardiol 1994, 1:254–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lette J, Bertrand C, Gossard D, et al.: Long-term risk stratification with dipyridamole imaging. Am Heart J 1995, 129:880–886.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Heller GV, Herman SD, Tavin MI, et al.: Independent prognostic value of intravenous dipyridamole with technetium-99m sestamibi tomographic imaging in predicting cardiac events and cardiac-related hospital admissions. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995, 26:1202–1208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Geleijnse ML, Elhendy A, Van Domburg RT, et al.: Prognostic value of dobutamine-atropine stress technetium-99m sestamibi perfusion scintigraphy in patients with chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996, 28:447–454.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Kiat H, et al.: Incremental prognostic value of adenosine stress myocardial perfusion singlephoton emission computed tomography and impact on subsequent management in patients with or suspected of having myocardial ischemia. Am J Cardiol 1997, 80:426–433.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Calnon DA, McGrath PD, Doss AL, et al.: Prognostic value of Dobutamine stress technetium-99m-sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging: stratification of a high-risk population. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001, 38:1511–1517.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lette J, Lapointe J, Waters D, et al.: Transient left ventricular cavitary dilation during dipyridamole-thallium imaging as an indicator of severe coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1990, 66:1163–1170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McClellan JR, Travin MI, Herman SD, et al.: Prognostic importance of scintigraphic left ventricular cavity dilation during intravenous dipyridamole technetium-99m sestamibi myocardial tomographic imaging in predicting coronary events. Am J Cardiol 1997, 79:600–605.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Shaw LJ, et al.: Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death. Circulation 1998, 97:535–543.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Navare SM, Mather JF, Fowler MS, et al.: Are there differences in risk stratification of patients with known or suspected coronary disease between pharmacologic and exercise stress myocardial perfusion imaging? A Meta-analysis [abstract]. J Nucl Cardiol 2002, 9:S22.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Amanullah AM, Berman DS, Erel J, et al.:Incremental prognostic value of adenosine myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography in women with suspected coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol1998,82:725–730.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shaw L, Chaitman BR, Hilton TC, et al.: Prognostic value of dipyridamole thallium-201 imaging in elderly patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992, 19:1390–1398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Crawford MH, et al.: Outcomes in patients with acute non-Q-wave myocardial infarction randomly assigned to an invasive as compared with a conservative management strategy. Veterans affairs non-Q-wave infarction strategies in hospital (VANQWISH) Trial investigators. N Engl J Med 1998, 338:1785–1792. A large, prospective, randomized trial of management of non-Q-wave MI comparing a conservative versus invasive approach. The article showed that patients did not benefit from an early invasive approach, and possibly did worse.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Brown KA, O’Meara J, Chambers CE, Plante DA: Ability of dipyridamole-thallium-201 imaging one to four days after acute myocardial infarction to predict in-hospital and late recurrent myocardial ischemic events. Am J Cardiol 1990, 65:160–167. The first study to show the safety and importance of dipyridamole stress test early after acute MI. A total of 45% of patients with infarct zone redistribution with 201Tl had in-hospital cardiac events, compared with none who did not show the infarct zone redistribution.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brown KA, Heller GV, Landin RS, et al.: Early dipyridamole 99mTc-seatamibi single photon emission computed tomographic imaging 2 to 4 days after acute myocardial infarction predicts in-hospital and post discharge cardiac events. Circulation 1999, 100:2060–2066.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Braunwald E, Antman EM, Beasley JW, et al.: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: executive summary and recommendations. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (committee on the management of patients with unstable angina). Circulation 2000, 102:1193–1209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stratmann HG, Tamesis BR, Younis LT, et al.: Prognostic value of predischarge dipyridamole technetium 99m sestamibi myocardial tomography in medically treated patients with unstable angina. Am Heart J 1995, 130:734–740.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Eagle KA, Coley CM, Newell JB, et al.: Combining clinical and thallium data optimizes preoperative assessment of cardiac risk before major vascular surgery. Ann Int Med 1989, 110:859–866.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Leppo J, Plaja J, Gionet M, et al.: Noninvasive evaluation of cardiac risk before elective vascular surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987, 9:269–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hendel RC, Whitfield SS, Villegas BJ, et al.: Prediction of late cardiac events by dipyridamole thallium imaging in patients undergoing elective vascular surgery. Am J Cardiol 1992, 70:1243–1249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Brown KA, Rowen M: Extent of jeopardized viable myocardium determined by myocardial perfusion imaging best predicts perioperative cardiac events in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993, 21:325–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Eagle KA, Berger PB, Calkins H, et al.: Guidelines for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery. Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery). J Am Coll Cardiol 1996, 27:910–940.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Eagle KA, Berger PB, Calkins H, et al.: American College of cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (committee to update the 1996 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation of noncardiac surgery). Circulation 2002, 105:1257–1267.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shaw LJ, Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, et al.: The economic consequences of available diagnostic and prognostic strategies for the evaluation of stable angina patients: an observational assessment of the value of pre-catheterization ischemia. Economics of Noninvasive Diagnosis (END) Multicenter Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999, 33:661–669. A prospective study of more than 11,000 patients that compared cost of care by stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy versus cardiac catheterization for initial assessment of patients with stable chest pain syndromes. After adjusting for clinical risk, there were no short- or long-term differences in outcomes between the two groups, but there was a substantial savings of 30% to 40% in the cost of care by using the strategy of initial stress scintigraphy.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sachin M. Navare
  • Athanasios Kapetanopoulos
  • Gary V. Heller
    • 1
  1. 1.Hartford HospitalUniversity of Connecticut School of MedicineHartfordUSA

Personalised recommendations