Limits...
Safety and tolerability of regadenoson CMR.

Nguyen KL, Bandettini WP, Shanbhag S, Leung SW, Wilson JR, Arai AE - Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging (2014)

Bottom Line: Knowledge of adverse events associated with regadenoson perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and patient tolerability has implications for patient safety and staff training.We sought to assess the safety and tolerability of regadenoson stress CMR.Regadenoson CMR is well tolerated and can be performed safely with few adverse events.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Branch, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive Bldg 10, Rm B1D416, MSC 1061, Bethesda, MD 20892-1061, USA Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90073, USA.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Haemodynamic response with regadenoson. Values reported are medians. Error bars represent the inter-quartile range. Systolic and diastolic BP response among patient subgroups was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). BMI, body mass index; BP, blood pressure.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4060784&req=5

JET278F4: Haemodynamic response with regadenoson. Values reported are medians. Error bars represent the inter-quartile range. Systolic and diastolic BP response among patient subgroups was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). BMI, body mass index; BP, blood pressure.

Mentions: Systolic and diastolic BPR among patient subgroups and normal volunteers was not statistically significant (P > 0.05, Figure 4). In the patient cohort, median systolic and diastolic BPR were −2% (IQR: −10 to 5) and −5% (IQR: −14 to 3), respectively. In normal volunteers, median systolic and diastolic BPR were −3% (IQR: −6 to 6) and −10% (IQR: −17 to 1), respectively. Despite relatively similar baseline median HR between normal volunteers [65 bpm (IQR: 53–71)] and patient cohort [66 bpm (IQR: 58–76), P = 0.066], normal volunteers had a higher median HRR [71% (IQR: 58–97)] when compared with the patient cohort [48% (IQR: 35–63), P < 0.001] (Figure 4). The higher HRR by normal volunteers likely represent a robust sympathetic response as one would expect in a younger cohort of normal healthy volunteers. A statistically significant blunted HRR was noted in those with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 and DM (Figure 5). Patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 had a higher median baseline HR [68 bpm (IQR: 62–77)] when compared with those with BMI <30 kg/m2 [64 bpm (IQR: 57–65 bpm), P = 0.001]. A higher resting HR was also present in patients with DM [69 bpm (IQR: 62–80)] compared with those without DM [65 bpm (IQR: 58–75), P = 0.001].Figure 4


Safety and tolerability of regadenoson CMR.

Nguyen KL, Bandettini WP, Shanbhag S, Leung SW, Wilson JR, Arai AE - Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging (2014)

Haemodynamic response with regadenoson. Values reported are medians. Error bars represent the inter-quartile range. Systolic and diastolic BP response among patient subgroups was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). BMI, body mass index; BP, blood pressure.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4060784&req=5

JET278F4: Haemodynamic response with regadenoson. Values reported are medians. Error bars represent the inter-quartile range. Systolic and diastolic BP response among patient subgroups was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). BMI, body mass index; BP, blood pressure.
Mentions: Systolic and diastolic BPR among patient subgroups and normal volunteers was not statistically significant (P > 0.05, Figure 4). In the patient cohort, median systolic and diastolic BPR were −2% (IQR: −10 to 5) and −5% (IQR: −14 to 3), respectively. In normal volunteers, median systolic and diastolic BPR were −3% (IQR: −6 to 6) and −10% (IQR: −17 to 1), respectively. Despite relatively similar baseline median HR between normal volunteers [65 bpm (IQR: 53–71)] and patient cohort [66 bpm (IQR: 58–76), P = 0.066], normal volunteers had a higher median HRR [71% (IQR: 58–97)] when compared with the patient cohort [48% (IQR: 35–63), P < 0.001] (Figure 4). The higher HRR by normal volunteers likely represent a robust sympathetic response as one would expect in a younger cohort of normal healthy volunteers. A statistically significant blunted HRR was noted in those with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 and DM (Figure 5). Patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 had a higher median baseline HR [68 bpm (IQR: 62–77)] when compared with those with BMI <30 kg/m2 [64 bpm (IQR: 57–65 bpm), P = 0.001]. A higher resting HR was also present in patients with DM [69 bpm (IQR: 62–80)] compared with those without DM [65 bpm (IQR: 58–75), P = 0.001].Figure 4

Bottom Line: Knowledge of adverse events associated with regadenoson perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and patient tolerability has implications for patient safety and staff training.We sought to assess the safety and tolerability of regadenoson stress CMR.Regadenoson CMR is well tolerated and can be performed safely with few adverse events.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Branch, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive Bldg 10, Rm B1D416, MSC 1061, Bethesda, MD 20892-1061, USA Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90073, USA.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus