Comparing two pharmacological stress tests: adenosine vs ATP infusion – patien...

• Autor(es): Santos, A ; Geão, A ; Mota, A ; Pereira, E ; Dias, L ; Delgado, P ; Figueiredo, S ; Jerónimo, V
• Data: 2011
• Origem: Repositório Comum
• Assunto(s): Adenosine Triphosphate; Coronary Disease; Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted; Adenosine; Adenosina; Trifosfato de Adenosina; Doença Coronária; Interpretação de Imagem Radiográfica Assistida por Computador
• Tipo de Documento: Documento de conferência
• Idioma: Inglês

Descrição

Aim: Adenosine and Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) are vasodilator agents that are used for pharmacologic stress testing in Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (MPI). Both pharmaceuticals may cause side-effects that are similarly described in the literature. Although, the half-life of these molecules are slightly different and patient’s tolerance might be different. These molecules have also been associated to an increase in the sub diaphragmatic tracer uptake that may reduce image quality, interfering with image interpretation. The aim of this study was to compare pharmacologic stress tests induced by adenosine infusion and by ATP infusion in terms of side-effects referred by patients and the corresponding image quality. Materials & Methods: Two hundred and forty eight (248) patients that underwent MPI were divided in two groups: Group 1 – Adenosine infusion (n=157); Group 3 – ATP infusion (n=91). Each group was further divided according to the presence or absence of side effects, their number and the need to administer pharmacological therapy to control symptoms: A- No side-effects; B - One side-effect; C – Two side-effects; D – Three or more side-effects and/or pharmacologic therapy needed. Image quality was evaluated according to the requirement of a new stress acquisition due to extra-cardiac activity that interfered with image quality and interpretation. Microsoft ExcelTM and SPSSTM were used in this analysis. We also correlated the two populations (Adenosine and ATP) according to the risk factors for cardiac events and the MPI result (normal or pathologic), in order to ensure that uniformity between both groups. Results: The most common effects were facial flushing, abdominal/throat pressure and discomfort in the arms. (See Table 1). Conclusions: The group with the highest percentage of no side-effects and the smaller percentage of three or more side-effects was group 2. However, in spite of the higher percentage of one side effect for group 2 (group 2=38% vs group 1=34%), the difference between them is not statistically significant (p=0,065), so we can assume that both groups had the same percentage of only one side-effect. Additionally, this group had less acquisition repetition, if compared to group 1 (acquisitions repeated: group 1=19,9%, group 2= 9,9%, p= 0,001). So, the group that had better results in terms of patient’s tolerance and image quality was group 2 – ATP infusion.