Circulation · 2001
Comparative value of dobutamine and adenosine stress in the detection of coronary stenosis with myocardial contrast echocardiography.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Lafitte S, Matsugata H, Peters B, Togni M, Strachan M, Kwan O L, DeMaria A N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Controversy continues as to whether adenosine or dobutamine is the superior pharmacological stress agent for myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE).
METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared real-time MCE refilling curves and wall thickening during adenosine and dobutamine stress in 14 open-chest dogs with left anterior descending and left circumflex coronary artery stenoses that reduced hyperemia by 40% to 60% and 70% to 90% (mild and severe non-flow-limiting stenosis, NFLS) and resting flow by 10% to 30% and 35% to 50% (mild and severe flow-limiting stenosis, FLS). MCE was performed with low-energy imaging during Optison infusion. After high-energy bubble destruction, time-intensity data from risk beds were fitted for an exponential function as y=A(1-e(-)(bt)), from which the rate of intensity increase (b) and maximal plateau intensity (A) were derived. Although severe NFLS and greater stenoses decreased b with both dobutamine and adenosine, with mild NFLS it was reduced in 58% of animals with dobutamine versus 8% with adenosine. The absolute decrease in b, however, was greater for adenosine than dobutamine with FLS. The A parameter was decreased with both adenosine and dobutamine only with the most severe FLS. Wall thickening was decreased with dobutamine in 33% of animals with severe NFLS and in all animals with any FLS; with adenosine, in all with severe FLS.
CONCLUSIONS: Both dobutamine and adenosine significantly reduce MCE refilling rates in the setting of severe stenosis and in the absence of contractile abnormalities. Dobutamine decreases refilling rate and wall thickening at a less reduced flow grade than adenosine, but adenosine produces a greater magnitude of change than dobutamine.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared real-time MCE refilling curves and wall thickening during adenosine and dobutamine stress in 14 open-chest dogs with left anterior descending and left circumflex coronary artery stenoses that reduced hyperemia by 40% to 60% and 70% to 90% (mild and severe non-flow-limiting stenosis, NFLS) and resting flow by 10% to 30% and 35% to 50% (mild and severe flow-limiting stenosis, FLS). MCE was performed with low-energy imaging during Optison infusion. After high-energy bubble destruction, time-intensity data from risk beds were fitted for an exponential function as y=A(1-e(-)(bt)), from which the rate of intensity increase (b) and maximal plateau intensity (A) were derived. Although severe NFLS and greater stenoses decreased b with both dobutamine and adenosine, with mild NFLS it was reduced in 58% of animals with dobutamine versus 8% with adenosine. The absolute decrease in b, however, was greater for adenosine than dobutamine with FLS. The A parameter was decreased with both adenosine and dobutamine only with the most severe FLS. Wall thickening was decreased with dobutamine in 33% of animals with severe NFLS and in all animals with any FLS; with adenosine, in all with severe FLS.
CONCLUSIONS: Both dobutamine and adenosine significantly reduce MCE refilling rates in the setting of severe stenosis and in the absence of contractile abnormalities. Dobutamine decreases refilling rate and wall thickening at a less reduced flow grade than adenosine, but adenosine produces a greater magnitude of change than dobutamine.