A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Regadenoson pharmacologic rubidium-82 PET: a comparison of quantitative perfusion and function to dipyridamole. | LitMetric

Regadenoson pharmacologic rubidium-82 PET: a comparison of quantitative perfusion and function to dipyridamole.

J Nucl Cardiol

Cardiovascular Imaging Technologies, LLC, 4320 Wornall Road, Suite 55, Kansas City, MO 64111, USA.

Published: February 2013


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Dipyridamole is used for stress (82)rubidium chloride ((82)RbCl) PET because of its long hyperemic duration. Regadenoson has advantages of a fixed dose and favorable symptom profile, but its mean maximal hyperemia is only 2.3 minutes. To determine its suitability for (82)RbCl PET, we imaged subjects using a regadenoson protocol based on its hyperemic response and compared the images in the same subjects having dipyridamole PET.

Methods: In 32 subjects (23 M), we assessed visually by blinded interpretation and quantitatively compared summed stress and difference scores, total perfusion deficit (TPD), LVEF, LV volumes, and change in stress-rest function. Linear correlation and Bland-Altman analysis of the paired measurements were applied for evaluation of differences. Paired t test and Pearson's correlation were applied for testing of significance.

Results: The images were interpreted the same by visual assessment. Twenty-six (26) subjects had reversible defects; by quantitation the SSS was 12.9 ± 7.0 and 14.1 ± 6.4 (P = .23) and SDS was 7.0 ± 6.8 versus 7.6 ± 6.2 (P = .40) for dipyridamole and regadenoson, respectively. Six (6) subjects had <5% likelihood of CAD and were normal by both. All paired measurements showed a high positive correlation between regadenoson and dipyridamole; stress segmental perfusion Reg = 0.93Dip + 4.4, r = 0.88; TPD Reg = 0.94Dip + 0.41, r = 0.93; LVEF Reg = 0.92Dip + 4.7, r = 0.95; stress minus rest LVEF Reg = 0.87Dip - 0.99, r = 0.82.

Conclusion: Regadenoson stress (82)RbCl PET perfusion defect and cardiac function measurements are visually and quantitatively equivalent to dipyridamole studies and can be obtained with the clinical advantages of regadenoson.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-012-9636-4DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

82rbcl pet
8
subjects
5
regadenoson
4
regadenoson pharmacologic
4
pharmacologic rubidium-82
4
rubidium-82 pet
4
pet comparison
4
comparison quantitative
4
quantitative perfusion
4
perfusion function
4

Similar Publications