Top

Published in:

01-02-2021 | Positron Emission Tomography | ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Comparison of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve with dobutamine and dipyridamole stress using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography

Authors: Matthieu Pelletier-Galarneau, MD, MSc, Paola Ferro, MD, Samuel Patterson, Terrence D. Ruddy, MD, Rob S. Beanlands, MD, Robert A. deKemp, PhD

Published in: Journal of Nuclear Cardiology | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

The objective of this study was to compare the hyperemic myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) obtained with dobutamine to those of dipyridamole in patients referred for myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) using ⁸²Rb positron emission tomography.

Methods

One hundred and fifty-six patients who underwent a ⁸²Rb PET MPI study with dobutamine stress were included. A matching cohort of patients who underwent a ⁸²Rb PET MPI study with dipyridamole stress was created, accounting for sex, age, history of coronary artery disease (CAD), prior revascularization, CAD risk factors, body mass index, and MPI interpretation.

Results

Global rest MBF (median [interquartile range] 0.84 [0.64-1.00] vs 0.69 [0.59-0.85]), stress MBF (2.36 [1.73-3.08] vs 1.66 [1.25-2.06]), MFR (2.75 [2.19-3.64] vs 2.29 [1.78-2.84]), and corrected MFR (2.85 [2.14-3.64] vs 2.20 [1.65-2.75]) were all significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in the dobutamine cohort compared to the dipyridamole cohort.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that dobutamine produces higher MBF compared to dipyridamole in a representative population referred to nuclear cardiology laboratories.

Available only for authorised users

Pelletier-Galarneau M, Martineau P, El Fakhri G. Quantification of PET myocardial blood flow. Curr Cardiol Rep 2019;21:11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-019-1096-x.CrossRefPubMed

Henzlova MJ, Duvall WL, Einstein AJ, et al. ASNC imaging guidelines for SPECT nuclear cardiology procedures: Stress, protocols, and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol 2016;23:606-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-015-0387-x.CrossRefPubMed

Gonzalez JA, Beller GA. Choosing exercise or pharmacologic stress imaging, or exercise ECG testing alone: How to decide. J Nucl Cardiol 2017;24:555-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-016-0409-3.CrossRefPubMed

Bateman TM, Dilsizian V, Beanlands RS, et al. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology and Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Joint Position Statement on the Clinical Indications for Myocardial Perfusion PET. J Nucl Cardiol 2016;23:1227-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-016-0626-9.CrossRefPubMed

Camici PG, d’Amati G, Rimoldi O. Coronary microvascular dysfunction: Mechanisms and functional assessment. Nat Rev Cardiol 2015;12:48-62. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2014.160.CrossRefPubMed

Pelletier-Galarneau M, Dilsizian V. Microvascular angina diagnosed by absolute PET myocardial blood flow quantification. Curr Cardiol Rep 2020;22:9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-020-1261-2.CrossRefPubMed

Efseaff M, Klein R, Ziadi MC, et al. Short-term repeatability of resting myocardial blood flow measurements using rubidium-82 PET imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2012;19:997-1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-012-9600-3.CrossRefPubMed

deKemp RA, Declerck J, Klein R, et al. Multisoftware reproducibility study of stress and rest myocardial blood flow assessed with 3D dynamic PET/CT and a 1-tissue-compartment model of 82Rb kinetics. J Nucl Med 2013;54:571-7. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.112219.CrossRefPubMed

Lortie M, Beanlands RSB, Yoshinaga K, et al Quantification of myocardial blood flow with 82Rb dynamic PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1765-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-007-0478-2.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Kaufmann PA, Gnecchi-Ruscone T, Yap JT, et al. Assessment of the reproducibility of baseline and hyperemic myocardial blood flow measurements with 15O-labeled water and PET. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1848-56.PubMed

11.

Hoffmann RG. Statistics in the practice of medicine. JAMA 1963;185:864-73. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1963.03060110068020.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Katayev A, Balciza C, Seccombe DW. Establishing reference intervals for clinical laboratory test results is there a better way? Am J Clin Pathol 2010;133:180-6. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPN5BMTSF1CDYP.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Skopicki HA, Abraham SA, Picard MH, et al. Effects of dobutamine at maximally tolerated dose on myocardial blood flow in humans with ischemic heart disease. Circulation 1997;96:3346-52. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.96.10.3346.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Jagathesan R, Barnes E, Rosen SD, et al. Comparison of myocardial blood flow and coronary flow reserve during dobutamine and adenosine stress: Implications for pharmacologic stress testing in coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol 2006;13:324-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclcard.2006.03.017.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Krivokapich J, Huang SC, Schelbert HR. Assessment of the effects of dobutamine on myocardial blood flow and oxidative metabolism in normal human subjects using nitrogen-13 ammonia and carbon-11 acetate. Am J Cardiol 1993;71:1351-6.CrossRef

16.

Krivokapich J, Czernin J, Schelbert HR. Dobutamine positron emission tomography: Absolute quantitation of rest and dobutamine myocardial blood flow and correlation with cardiac work and percent diameter stenosis in patients with and without coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28:565-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(96)00205-7.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Severi S, Underwood R, Mohiaddin RH, et al. Dobutamine stress: Effects on regional myocardial blood flow and wall motion. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;26:1187-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(95)00319-3.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Tadamura E, Iida H, Matsumoto K, et al. Comparison of myocardial blood flow during dobutamine-atropine infusion with that after dipyridamole administration in normal men. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:130-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(00)01043-3.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Jozef B, William W, Heyndrickx GR, de Bruyne B. Effects of dobutamine on coronary stenosis physiology and morphology. Circulation 1999;100:243-9. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.100.3.243.CrossRef

20.

Miyashiro JK, Feigl EO. Feedforward control of coronary blood flow via coronary beta-receptor stimulation. Circ Res 1993;73:252-63. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.res.73.2.252.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Duncker DJ, Stubenitsky R, Verdouw PD. Autonomic control of vasomotion in the porcine coronary circulation during treadmill exercise: Evidence for feed-forward beta-adrenergic control. Circ Res 1998;82:1312-22. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.res.82.12.1312.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Dubois-Randé JL, Merlet P, Duval-Moulin AM, et al. Coronary vasodilating action of dobutamine in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Am Heart J 1993;125:1329-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-8703(93)91003-w.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Abele JT, Raubenheimer M, Bain VG, et al. Quantitative blood flow evaluation of vasodilation-stress compared with dobutamine-stress in patients with end-stage liver disease using 82Rb PET/CT. J Nucl Cardiol 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-018-01516-8.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Murthy VL, Bateman TM, Beanlands RS, et al. Clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow using PET: Joint Position Paper of the SNMMI Cardiovascular Council and the ASNC. J Nucl Cardiol 2018;25:269-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-017-1110-x.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Schindler TH, Dilsizian V. Coronary microvascular dysfunction: Clinical considerations and noninvasive diagnosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.11.036.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Goldstein RA, Mullani NA, Marani SK, et al. Myocardial perfusion with rubidium-82. II. Effects of metabolic and pharmacologic interventions. J Nucl Med 1983;24:907-15.PubMed

27.

Hutchins GD, Caraher JM, Raylman RR. A region of interest strategy for minimizing resolution distortions in quantitative myocardial PET studies. J Nucl Med 1992;33:1243-50.PubMed

Title: Comparison of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve with dobutamine and dipyridamole stress using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography
Authors: Matthieu Pelletier-Galarneau, MD, MSc
Paola Ferro, MD
Samuel Patterson
Terrence D. Ruddy, MD
Rob S. Beanlands, MD
Robert A. deKemp, PhD
Publication date: 01-02-2021
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keyword: Positron Emission Tomography
Published in: Journal of Nuclear Cardiology / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 1071-3581
Electronic ISSN: 1532-6551
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-020-02186-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Comparison of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve with dobutamine and dipyridamole stress using rubidium-82 positron emission tomography

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

CME INSTRUCTIONS: Quantitative clinical nuclear cardiology, part 2: Evolving/emerging applications

What is this image? 2020: Image 4 result

Optimal 99mTc activity ratio in the single-day stress-rest myocardial perfusion imaging protocol: A multi-SPECT phantom study

Initial clinical experience of N13-ammonia myocardial perfusion PET/CT using a compact superconducting production system

The 2020 trials and tribulations

Feasibility of simultaneous 99mTc-tetrofosmin and 123I-BMIPP dual-tracer imaging with cadmium-zinc-telluride detectors in patients undergoing primary coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction