Coronary vasodilation without myocardial erection. Simultaneous haemodynamic, echocardiographic and arteriographic findings during adenosine and dipyridamole infusion.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate simultaneously echocardiographic, haemodynamic and angiographic changes that occur during adenosine and dipyridamole infusion, in patients with one-vessel coronary artery stenosis. This would assess whether deterioration in left ventricular haemodynamics during vasodilator agent infusion is influenced by vasodilation per se, or the development of myocardial ischaemia.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed adenosine (140 micrograms.kg-1.min-1 over 4 min) and dipyridamole (up to 0.84 mg.kg-1 over 10 min) stress echocardiography tests, together with angiographic and haemodynamic assessment, in 26 patients undergoing elective coronary angioplasty. In 12 of 26 patients, adenosine and dipyridamole tests were repeated 24 h after angioplasty. The criterion for echocardiography test positivity was the appearance of a new transient regional wall motion abnormality. Coronary angiograms were analysed with quantitative coronary arteriography. Adenosine and dipyridamole induced regional dysfunction in 18/26 (69%) and 14/26 (54%) patients before angioplasty, respectively (P = ns). In the echocardiography-positive patients, the percent diameter stenosis was significantly (P < 0.05) tighter stenosis than in the echocardiography-negative patients (adenosine, 66.6 +/- 8.3% vs 58.0 +/- 8.9%; dipyridamole, 69.2 +/- 7.1% vs 57.7 +/- 7.6%). During both tests, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure significantly increased (P < 0.05) in echocardiography-positive patients (adenosine, 9.8 +/- 2.7 mmHg to 13.5 +/- 4.1 mmHg; dipyridamole, 10.1 +/- 2.8 mmHg to 14.1 +/- 4.3 mmHg), but not in echocardiography-negative patients. In the patients who had undergone successful angioplasty (reduction to < 50% diameter stenosis), both adenosine and dipyridamole confirmed the arteriographic success of the procedure (echocardiography negative in all patients). In this group of patients, no significant change was observed in left ventricular end-diastolic pressure during adenosine or dipyridamole infusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous infusion of either adenosine or dipyridamole was accompanied by an obvious increase in left ventricular end-diastolic pressure only in patients with induced wall motion abnormalities. Coronary vasodilation per se has no significant effect on left ventricular end-diastolic pressure when no ischaemia is induced, disproving any clinically significant 'erectile' and adverse effects of coronary vasodilation per se.