Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Clinical experience with regadenoson SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: insights into patient characteristics, safety, and impact of results on clinical management

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Henry Ford Hospital (HFH) regadenoson (REG) registry includes patients with a variety of comorbidities allowing for the evaluation of outcomes in a large, unselected population. Using a database of electronic medical records and nuclear cardiology reports, patients aged > 18 years who underwent REG-facilitated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) testing at HFH between January 2009 and August 2012 were identified. The primary objective was to describe the clinical and demographic characteristics of patients who had undergone REG only vs REG WALK (REG + low-level exercise) SPECT. A total of 2104 patients were included in the analysis (mean age 65.3 years; 50% women; 51% African American, 43% Caucasian). For the REG only (n = 1318) and REG WALK (n = 786) cohorts, SPECT was abnormal in 37% of patients (REG only, 39%; REG WALK, 34%; P < 0.01). No differences in diagnostic modalities or interventions in 90 days after SPECT were observed. Immediate safety analysis showed no deaths 48 h after REG SPECT testing. Although they guide invasive therapy, abnormal scans do not automatically lead to invasive testing. This demonstrates the focus on initial medical management, which reflects the existing evidence of initial goal-directed medical management of stable coronary disease.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Graham G (2015) Disparities in cardiovascular disease risk in the United States. Curr Cardiol Rev 11:238–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Berman DS (2004) Stress myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography is clinically effective and cost effective in risk stratification of patients with a high likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD) but no known CAD. J Am Coll Cardiol 43:200–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Valeti US, Miller TD, Hodge DO, Gibbons RJ (2005) Exercise single-photon emission computed tomography provides effective risk stratification of elderly men and elderly women. Circulation 111:1771–1776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Samady H, Wackers FJ, Joska TM et al (2002) Pharmacologic stress perfusion imaging with adenosine: role of simultaneous low-level treadmill exercise. J Nucl Cardiol 9:188–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Thomas GS, Thompson RC, Miyamoto MI et al (2009) The RegEx trial: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled pilot study combining regadenoson, a selective A(2A) adenosine agonist, with low-level exercise, in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 16:63–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kwon DH, Cerqueira MD, Young R et al (2010) Lessons from regadenoson and low-level treadmill/regadenoson myocardial perfusion imaging: initial clinical experience in 1263 patients. J Nucl Cardiol 17:853–857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Market Guide (U.S.) (2011) Supplement to the U.S. Imaging Market Guide. Arlington Medical Resources, Inc, Malvern

  8. Doukky R, Morales Demori R, Jain S, Kiriakos R, Mwansa V, Calvin JE (2012) Attenuation of the side effect profile of regadenoson: a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled study with aminophylline in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging. “The ASSUAGE trial.” J Nucl Cardiol 19(3):448–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kattoor AJ, Kolkailah AA, Iskander F et al (2020) The prognostic value of regadenoson SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: the largest cohort to date. J Nucl Cardiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-020-02135-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Golzar Y, Doukky R (2014) Regadenoson use in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the state of current knowledge. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 9:129–137

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Cabrera R, Husain Z, Palani G et al (2013) Comparison of hemodynamic and stress testing variables in patients undergoing regadenoson stress myocardial perfusion imaging to regadenoson with adjunctive low-level exercise myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 20:336–343 (quiz 344–345)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cerqueira M, Papatheofanis F (2009) Effect of race/ethnic origin on the efficacy and safety of regadenoson versus adenosine in MPI. J Nucl Med 50:416

    Google Scholar 

  13. Leaker BR, O’Connor B, Hansel TT et al (2008) Safety of regadenoson, an adenosine A2A receptor agonist for myocardial perfusion imaging, in mild asthma and moderate asthma patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Nucl Cardiol 15:329–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Prenner BM, Bukofzer S, Behm S et al (2012) A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessing the safety and tolerability of regadenoson in subjects with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Nucl Cardiol 19:681–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Aljaroudi W, Hermann D, Hage F, Heo J, Iskandrian AE (2010) Safety of regadenoson in patients with end-stage renal disease. Am J Cardiol 105:133–135

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Thomas GS, Tammelin BR, Schiffman GL et al (2008) Safety of regadenoson, a selective adenosine A2A agonist, in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (RegCOPD trial). J Nucl Cardiol 15:319–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cremer P, Hachamovitch R, Tamarappoo B (2014) Clinical decision making with myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Semin Nucl Med 44:320–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, COURAGE Trial Research Group et al (2007) Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 356:1503–1516

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Al-Lamee R, Thompson D, Dehbi HM et al (2018) Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a doubleblind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 391:31–40. Erratum in: Lancet 2018, 391:30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cerqueira MD, Nguyen P, Staehr P, ADVANCE-MPI Trial Investigators et al (2008) Effects of age, gender, obesity, and diabetes on the efficacy and safety of the selective A2A agonist regadenoson versus adenosine in myocardial perfusion imaging integrated ADVANCE-MPI trial results. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 1:307–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ananthasubramaniam K, Weiss R, McNutt B, Klauke B, Feaheny K, Bukofzer S (2012) A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the safety and tolerance of regadenoson in subjects with stage 3 or 4 chronic kidney disease. J Nucl Cardiol 19:319–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Moles VM, Cascino T, Saleh A et al (2018) Safety of regadenoson stress testing in patients with pulmonary hypertension. J Nucl Cardiol 25:820–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cavalcante JL, Barboza J, Ananthasubramaniam K (2011) Regadenoson is a safe and well-tolerated pharmacological stress agent for myocardial perfusion imaging in post-heart transplant patients. J Nucl Cardiol 18:628–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. LEXISCAN (regadenoson) injection for intravenous use (2018) Full prescribing information. Astellas Pharma US, Inc., Northbrook, IL. https://www.astellas.us/docs/lexiscan.pdf. Accessed 11 Aug 2021

  25. Coylewright M, Blumenthal RS, Post W (2008) Placing COURAGE in context: review of the recent literature on managing stable coronary artery disease. Mayo Clin Proc 83:799–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hachamovitch R, Nutter B, Hlatky MA, SPARC Investigators et al (2012) Patient management after noninvasive cardiac imaging results from SPARC (study of myocardial perfusion and coronary anatomy imaging roles in coronary artery disease). J Am Coll Cardiol 59:462–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jouni H, Askew JW, Crusan DJ, Miller TD, Gibbons RJ (2016) Temporal trends of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging in patients without prior coronary artery disease: a 22-year experience at a tertiary academic medical center. Am Heart J 176:127–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bateman TM, O’Keefe JH Jr, Dong VM, Barnhart C, Ligon RW (1995) Coronary angiographic rates after stress single-photon emission computed tomographic scintigraphy. J Nucl Cardiol 2(3):217–223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Thomas GS, Miyamoto MI, Morello AP 3rd, Majmundar H, Thomas JJ, Sampson CH, Hachamovitch R, Shaw LJ (2004) Technetium 99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging predicts clinical outcome in the community outpatient setting. The Nuclear Utility in the Community (NUC) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 43(2):213–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Patel KK, Al Badarin F, Chan PS, Spertus JA, Courter S, Kennedy KF, Case JA, McGhie AI, Heller GV, Bateman TM (2019) Randomized comparison of clinical effectiveness of pharmacologic SPECT and PET MPI in symptomatic CAD patients. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 12(9):1821–1831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Al Badarin FJ, Chan PS, Spertus JA, Thompson RC, Patel KK, Kennedy KF, Bateman TM (2020) Temporal trends in test utilization and prevalence of ischaemia with positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 21(3):318–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rozanski A, Gransar H, Hayes SW et al (2013) Temporal trends in the frequency of inducible myocardial ischemia during cardiac stress testing: 1991 to 2009. J Am Coll Cardiol 61:1054–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR et al (2020) Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 382:1395–1407

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Medical writing and editorial support were provided by Steve Ren and Stephanie Butler from Xcenda L.L.C and funded by Astellas Pharma, Inc.

Funding

Funding for this project was provided by Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karthikeyan Ananthasubramaniam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Rita M. Kristy and James R. Spalding are employees of Astellas Pharma Global Development Inc. (Northbrook, IL). Therese M. Kitt and Yanqing Xu were employees of Astellas Pharma Global Development Inc. at the time the study was conducted; both remained involved in the development of this manuscript after departing. Meredith Van Harn is an employee of Henry Ford Hospital within the Department of Public Health (Detroit, MI). Karthikeyan Ananthasubramaniam and Matthew Saval are employees of Henry Ford Hospital (Detroit, MI). Karthikeyan Ananthasubramaniam received research grants from Astellas Pharma and is on the advisory panel of Astellas Pharma. Pertaining to this study, this was an investigator-initiated, industry-supported registry, and K. Ananthasubramaniam assumes full responsibility and oversight of study results and manuscript content.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ananthasubramaniam, K., Saval, M., Van Harn, M. et al. Clinical experience with regadenoson SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: insights into patient characteristics, safety, and impact of results on clinical management. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 38, 257–267 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-021-02374-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-021-02374-1

Keywords

Navigation