Multidisciplinary Cardiovascular Research Centre (MCRC) & Biomedical Imaging Science Department, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
The Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging Unit and The Inherited Cardiovascular Diseases Unit, Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, West Smithfield, London, UK.
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2021 Mar 18;23(1):37. doi: 10.1186/s12968-021-00714-7.
Adenosine stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is commonly used in the assessment of patients with suspected ischaemia. Accepted protocols recommend administration of adenosine at a dose of 140 µg/kg/min increased up to 210 µg/kg/min if required. Conventionally, adequate stress has been assessed using change in heart rate, however, recent studies have suggested that these peripheral measurements may not reflect hyperaemia and can be blunted, in particular, in patients with heart failure. This study looked to compare stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and haemodynamic response with different dosing regimens of adenosine during stress perfusion CMR in patients and healthy controls.
20 healthy adult subjects were recruited as controls to compare 3 adenosine perfusion protocols: standard dose (140 µg/kg/min for 4 min), high dose (210 µg/kg/min for 4 min) and long dose (140 µg/kg/min for 8 min). 60 patients with either known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) or with heart failure and different degrees of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction underwent adenosine stress with standard and high dose adenosine within the same scan. All studies were carried out on a 3 T CMR scanner. Quantitative global myocardial perfusion and haemodynamic response were compared between doses.
In healthy controls, no significant difference was seen in stress MBF between the 3 protocols. In patients with known or suspected CAD, and those with heart failure and mild systolic impairment (LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 40%) no significant difference was seen in stress MBF between standard and high dose adenosine. In those with LVEF < 40%, there was a significantly higher stress MBF following high dose adenosine compared to standard dose (1.33 ± 0.46 vs 1.10 ± 0.47 ml/g/min, p = 0.004). Non-responders to standard dose adenosine (defined by an increase in heart rate (HR) < 10 bpm) had a significantly higher stress HR following high dose (75 ± 12 vs 70 ± 14 bpm, p = 0.034), but showed no significant difference in stress MBF.
Increasing adenosine dose from 140 to 210 µg/kg/min leads to increased stress MBF in patients with significantly impaired LV systolic function. Adenosine dose in clinical perfusion assessment may need to be increased in these patients.
腺苷负荷心脏磁共振(CMR)常用于疑似缺血患者的评估。可接受的方案建议以 140μg/kg/min 的剂量给予腺苷,如果需要,可以增加至 210μg/kg/min。传统上,通过心率变化来评估充分的负荷,但最近的研究表明,这些外周测量可能无法反映充血,并且在心力衰竭患者中尤其可能会减弱。这项研究旨在比较不同剂量的腺苷在负荷灌注 CMR 期间对患者和健康对照者的心肌血流(MBF)和血液动力学反应。
招募 20 名健康成年受试者作为对照组,以比较 3 种腺苷灌注方案:标准剂量(4 分钟内 140μg/kg/min)、高剂量(4 分钟内 210μg/kg/min)和长剂量(8 分钟内 140μg/kg/min)。60 名患有已知或疑似冠状动脉疾病(CAD)或心力衰竭且左心室(LV)功能不同程度受损的患者在同一扫描中接受标准和高剂量腺苷的腺苷负荷。所有研究均在 3T CMR 扫描仪上进行。比较不同剂量之间的整体心肌灌注和血液动力学反应。
在健康对照组中,3 种方案之间的应激 MBF 无显著差异。在患有已知或疑似 CAD 以及心力衰竭和轻度收缩功能障碍(LV 射血分数(LVEF)≥40%)的患者中,标准剂量和高剂量腺苷之间的应激 MBF 无显著差异。在 LVEF<40%的患者中,与标准剂量相比,高剂量腺苷后应激 MBF 显著升高(1.33±0.46 与 1.10±0.47ml/g/min,p=0.004)。标准剂量腺苷无反应者(定义为心率(HR)增加<10bpm)在高剂量后 HR 显著增加(75±12 与 70±14bpm,p=0.034),但应激 MBF 无显著差异。
将腺苷剂量从 140 增加至 210μg/kg/min 可导致 LV 收缩功能严重受损的患者应激 MBF 增加。在这些患者中,临床灌注评估中的腺苷剂量可能需要增加。