Safety and tolerability of regadenoson compared with dipyridamole in myocardial perfusion imaging in patients scheduled to undergo medium to high-risk noncardiac surgery: a randomized controlled study. Issue 3 (13th December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Stavrou, Petros Z.; Polytarchou, Kali; Giannopoulou, Chariklia; Pantos, Kostas; Mourouzis, Iordanis; Datseris, Ioannis; Manolis, Antonis S.
• Is Part Of: Nuclear medicine communications. Volume 43:Issue 3(2022)
• Page Start: 256
• Page End: 264
• Publication Date: 2021-12-13
• Subjects: coronary artery disease -- dipyridamole -- myocardial perfusion imaging -- regadenoson -- SPECT -- vasodilators; Nuclear medicine -- Periodicals; 616.07575
• DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001513
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0143-3636

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: Regadenoson is the first Food and Drug Administration-approved selective A2A adenosine receptor agonist used in myocardial perfusion imaging. Its main benefits are its simplified and brief protocol, along with the ability to be administered safely in patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease of moderate severity. This study aims to identify any potential benefits of regadenoson, regarding the frequency of adverse reactions and its tolerability, over dipyridamole. Methods: This is a randomized controlled study of 200 patients scheduled for medium to high-risk noncardiac surgery, of whom 100 were stressed with regadenoson (study group) and the rest with dipyridamole (control group). Results: A greater proportion of adverse reactions was recorded in the regadenoson group as compared to the dipyridamole group (53 vs. 36%; P = 0.023), though the duration of most adverse reactions was shorter in the regadenoson group. Dyspnea ( P < 0.001) and gastrointestinal disturbances ( P = 0.001) were significantly more frequent in the regadenoson group. The use of aminophylline in patients who developed any adverse events was similar in the two groups ( P > 0.05). When multiple regression analyses were performed, differences in adverse reactions between the two groups were no longer significant (odds ratio = 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.88–3.25; P = 0.11). Conclusion: In our group of patients scheduled for myocardial perfusion imaging for preoperative assessment, the two agents, regadenoson and dipyridamole, have no significant differences in the frequency of mild adverse reactions and in aminophylline use, with regadenoson also having the advantage of faster symptom resolution. Nevertheless, dipyridamole can be considered as a well-tolerated and low-cost alternative.