Patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can safely undergo intravenous dipyridamole thallium-201 imaging.

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are usually excluded from intravenous dipyridamole thallium-201 testing. We developed a nurse-administered protocol to screen and pretreat patients so they could be safely tested.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We prospectively screened patients referred for intravenous dipyridamole thallium testing and retrospectively reviewed a comparison group of patients who had undergone intravenous dipyridamole testing before our bronchospasm protocol. We studied 492 consecutive patients referred for intravenous dipyridamole thallium testing, separating those with complete data (n = 451) into two groups: group A (n = 72), patients assessed to be at risk for intravenous dipyridamole-induced bronchospasm who received our bronchospasm treatment protocol; and group B (n = 379), patients assessed to be free of risk, who did not receive our bronchospasm protocol. Group C (n = 89) was a retrospective comparison group of patients who had undergone intravenous dipyridamole testing before initiation of the protocol. Patients were considered at risk for an adverse event if any of the following were present: peak flow < or =400 ml at the time of the test (spirometry by nurse) that increased to >400 ml after bronchodilator treatment, wheezing audible with stethoscope, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma or dyspnea on exertion at less than four blocks, or resting respiratory rate >18 breaths/min. The test was considered contraindicated if resting oxygen saturation was <85%, respiratory rate < or =36 breaths/min, or peak flow measured by peak flowmeter <400 ml after bronchodilator inhalant (albuterol or metaproterenol sulfate by spacer) at a dose of up to six puffs. One minute after injections of thallium-201, patients at risk were given 50 mg aminophylline by slow intravenous injection. We looked for major and minor adverse effects and divided them into three categories: (1) minor events (transient headache, abdominal discomfort, or nausea), wheezing (audible by stethoscope but without marked respiratory distress), (2) marked events (severe bronchospasm or severe ischemia defined as wheezing audible with or without stethoscope, respiratory rate >20 breaths/min or increased by 10 from pretest evaluation, oxygen desaturation to <90%, hypoventilation [reduced respiratory rate with decreased mental status], respiratory arrest, chest pain, horizontal ST-segment depression > or =1 mm on the electrocardiogram in any lead, symptomatic hypotension), or (3) other intravenous dipyridamole-induced side effects (persistent headache, dizziness, flushing, nausea, dyspnea, and ischemic chest pain) or anginal equivalent. The protocol properly identified patients with impaired pulmonary function. There was no difference in the frequency of adverse marked events among groups A, B, or C (1 % vs 4% vs 2%, p = 0.25). Patients in group A had more minor side effects than those in group B (53% vs 35%, p = 0.004). Specifically, patients in group A were more likely to wheeze (39% vs 1 %, p = <0.001), but wheezing in group A was self-limited or responded to treatment as described in the protocol. The prevalence of positive thallium-201 scans in group A (44%) compared with group C (49%) was not different (p = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

A nurse-administered risk assessment and pretreatment protocol (1) properly identified patients with impaired pulmonary function, (2) permitted completion of intravenous dipyridamole testing in patients at risk for bronchospasm without an increased incidence of marked adverse events, and (3) did not appear to influence the interpretation of the thallium test.