Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025
Feasibility and safety of regadenoson stress perfusion protocol in pediatric transplant patients under general anesthesia.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Das Nikkan, Vu Eric L, Popescu Andrada, Magnetta Defne, Rigsby Cynthia K, Robinson Joshua D, Lee Simon, Husain Nazia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance with myocardial stress perfusion (stress CMR) is a non-invasive technique that offers an assessment of myocardial function, perfusion, and viability. Regadenoson is a selective cardiac adenosine A2 receptor agonist with fewer side effects than adenosine and a favorable safety profile in older pediatric heart transplant recipients (PHTR). There are limited studies evaluating the hemodynamic response of regadenoson in pediatric patients under general anesthesia (GA).
METHODS: We reviewed our experience with regadenoson stress CMR in PHTR under GA from 2020-2024 and compared to a non-GA group of PHTR who underwent regadenoson stress CMR from 2015-2022. Demographic and clinical data were recorded. Hemodynamic response and adverse events were reviewed. CMRs were reviewed for perfusion abnormalities and semi-quantitative analysis was performed using myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPRI).
RESULTS: Forty-six PHTR underwent 53 stress CMRs under GA over the study period (mean age 7.8 years; range 3-19 years). All patients received endotracheal intubation and sevoflurane and were monitored during and after regadenoson administration per institutional protocol. Heart rate (HR) prior to regadenoson administration was 84±12 beats/min with a peak of 109±14 beats/min and average mean blood pressure (BP) was 63±12 mmHg with a nadir of 45±8 mmHg. Transient hypotension was observed in 33 (77%) scans, which resolved with phenylephrine. There were no other adverse events. Phenylephrine was used in 48 CMRs (91%) for BP support at the discretion of anesthesia. Thirty-eight PHTR underwent 48 stress CMRs without sedation. CMRs were matched by time since transplant. The non-GA group was significantly older (mean age 15.8 years; p<0.001). GA patients had a larger percent decrease in mean BP compared to non-GA patients (27±17% vs 15±17%; p<0.001) with no difference in HR change. There were no significant differences in rates of qualitative perfusion defects, (11% vs 4%, p=0.18), late gadolinium enhancement or MPRI values between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Regadenoson stress CMR is safe and feasible in PHTR under GA. While hypotension was frequently seen, it improved in all cases with phenylephrine. Semi-quantitative myocardial perfusion analysis by MPRI is feasible in these young patients, however further studies are needed to assess its clinical utility in this population.
METHODS: We reviewed our experience with regadenoson stress CMR in PHTR under GA from 2020-2024 and compared to a non-GA group of PHTR who underwent regadenoson stress CMR from 2015-2022. Demographic and clinical data were recorded. Hemodynamic response and adverse events were reviewed. CMRs were reviewed for perfusion abnormalities and semi-quantitative analysis was performed using myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPRI).
RESULTS: Forty-six PHTR underwent 53 stress CMRs under GA over the study period (mean age 7.8 years; range 3-19 years). All patients received endotracheal intubation and sevoflurane and were monitored during and after regadenoson administration per institutional protocol. Heart rate (HR) prior to regadenoson administration was 84±12 beats/min with a peak of 109±14 beats/min and average mean blood pressure (BP) was 63±12 mmHg with a nadir of 45±8 mmHg. Transient hypotension was observed in 33 (77%) scans, which resolved with phenylephrine. There were no other adverse events. Phenylephrine was used in 48 CMRs (91%) for BP support at the discretion of anesthesia. Thirty-eight PHTR underwent 48 stress CMRs without sedation. CMRs were matched by time since transplant. The non-GA group was significantly older (mean age 15.8 years; p<0.001). GA patients had a larger percent decrease in mean BP compared to non-GA patients (27±17% vs 15±17%; p<0.001) with no difference in HR change. There were no significant differences in rates of qualitative perfusion defects, (11% vs 4%, p=0.18), late gadolinium enhancement or MPRI values between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Regadenoson stress CMR is safe and feasible in PHTR under GA. While hypotension was frequently seen, it improved in all cases with phenylephrine. Semi-quantitative myocardial perfusion analysis by MPRI is feasible in these young patients, however further studies are needed to assess its clinical utility in this population.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
HumansChild, PreschoolChildPyrazolesFemaleMaleFeasibility StudiesPurinesAnesthesia, GeneralAdolescentPredictive Value of TestsMyocardial Perfusion ImagingYoung AdultAdenosine A2 Receptor AgonistsHeart TransplantationTreatment OutcomeRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsCoronary CirculationAge FactorsHemodynamics