Adenosine versus regadenoson comparative evaluation in myocardial perfusion imaging: Results of the ADVANCE phase 3 multicenter international trial
Earlier phase 1 and 2 studies have shown that regadenoson has desirable features as a stress agent for myocardial perfusion imaging.
Methods and Results
This multicenter, double-blinded phase 3 trial involved 784 patients at 54 sites. Each patient underwent 2 sets of gated single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging studies: an initial qualifying study with adenosine and a subsequent randomized study with either regadenoson (2/3 of patients) or adenosine. Regadenoson was administered as a rapid bolus (<10 seconds) of 400 μg. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate noninferiority by showing that the difference in the strength of agreement in detecting reversible defects, based on blinded reading, between sequential adenosine-regadenoson images and adenosine-adenosine images, lay above a prespecified noninferiority margin. Other prospectively defined safety and tolerability comparisons and supporting analyses were also performed. The average agreement rate based on the median of 3 independent blinded readers was 0.63±0.03 for regadenoson-adenosine and 0.64±0.04 for adenosine-adenosine—a 1% absolute difference with the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval lying above the prespecified noninferiority margin. Side-by-side interpretation of regadenoson and adenosine images provided comparable results for detecting reversible defects. The peak increase in heart rate was greater with regadenoson than adenosine, but the blood pressure nadir was similar. A summed symptom score of flushing, chest pain, and dyspnea was less with regadenoson than adenosine (P=.013).
This phase 3 trial shows that regadenoson provides diagnostic information comparable to a standard adenosine infusion. There were no serious drug-related side effects, and regadenoson was better tolerated than adenosine.
Key WordsAdenosine regadenoson single photon emission computed tomography stress imaging coronary artery disease ischemia perfusion imaging
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 18.Hendel RC, Taillefer R, Crane PD, Widner PJ. Preliminary experience with BMS068645, a selective A2A adenosine agonist, for pharmacologic stress myocardial perfusion imaging [abstract]. Circulation 2005;112(Suppl II):11–474.Google Scholar
- 19.Lieu HD, Shryock JC, von Mering GO, Gordi T, Blackburn B, Olmsted AW, et al. Regadenoson a selective A2A adenosine receptor agonist causes dose-dependent increases of coronary blood flow velocity in humans. J Nucl Cardiol. In press 2007.Google Scholar
- 24.Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, 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 of Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association. Circulation 2002;105:539–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Iskandrian AE. Pharmacologic stress testing and other alternative techniques in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. In: Iskandrian AE, Verani MS, editors. Nuclear cardiac imaging: principles and applications. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. 2003. p. 164–89.Google Scholar
- 36.DeBruyne B, Baudhuin T, Melin JA, et al. Coronary flow reserve calculated from pressure measurements in humans: validation with positron emission tomography. Circulation 1994;89:1013–22.Google Scholar
- 38.Serruys PW, Di Marion C, Meneveau N, et al. Intracoronary pressure and flow velocity with sensor-tip guide wires: a new methodological comprehensive approach for the assessment of coronary hemodynamics before and after coronary interventions. Am J Cardiol 1993;71:41D-53D.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Pijls NHJ, Van Gelder B, Van der Voon P, et al. Fractional flow reserve: a useful index to evaluate the influence of an epicardial coronary stenosis on myocardial blood flow. Circulation 1995;92:318–9.Google Scholar