2009PubMedRequires access

Decreased [99mTc]Sestamibi uptake with dobutamine versus dipyridamole stress.

Roberto Sciagrà, Orazio Zoccarato, G Bisi, Alberto Pupi

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

AIM: Animal studies suggest an interference of dobutamine on [99mTc]sestamibi uptake. In this study dobutamine was compared to dipyridamole rest-stress [99mTc]sestamibi uptake ratio (UR). METHODS: Twenty-five patients with suspect coronary artery disease (CAD) underwent rest, dobutamine, and dipyridamole [99mTc]sestamibi SPECT at 24-h intervals and coronary angiography. UR was calculated separately for each coronary territory considering injected dose and acquisition delay. RESULTS: There were 38 CAD territories in 20 patients. On a patient basis, dipyridamole SPECT sensitivity was 85%, versus 70% for dobutamine. On a territory basis, sensitivity was 66% versus 42% (P<0.05), and specificity 92% versus 86%, respectively for dipyridamole versus dobutamine. In the 38 CAD territories, dipyridamole UR was -4.1+/-29.4%, and dobutamine UR was -13.1+/-19.9% (P<0.05). In the 37 no-CAD territories, UR was 34+/-23.6% for dipyridamole and -0.4+/-17.8% for dobutamine (P<0.0001). UR difference between CAD versus no-CAD territories was larger using dipyridamole (P<0.0001) than dobutamine (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The UR comparison confirms that [99mTc]sestamibi uptake underestimates the blood flow heterogeneity induced by dobutamine more than that produced by dipyridamole.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

AIM: Animal studies suggest an interference of dobutamine on [99mTc]sestamibi uptake. In this study dobutamine was compared to dipyridamole rest-stress [99mTc]sestamibi uptake ratio (UR). METHODS: Twenty-five patients with suspect coronary artery disease (CAD) underwent rest, dobutamine, and dipyridamole [99mTc]sestamibi SPECT at 24-h intervals and coronary angiography. UR was calculated separately for each coronary territory considering injected dose and acquisition delay. RESULTS: There were 38 CAD territories in 20 patients. On a patient basis, dipyridamole SPECT sensitivity was 85%, versus 70% for dobutamine. On a territory basis, sensitivity was 66% versus 42% (P<0.05), and specificity 92% versus 86%, respectively for dipyridamole versus dobutamine. In the 38 CAD territories, dipyridamole UR was -4.1+/-29.4%, and dobutamine UR was -13.1+/-19.9% (P<0.05). In the 37 no-CAD territories, UR was 34+/-23.6% for dipyridamole and -0.4+/-17.8% for dobutamine (P<0.0001). UR difference between CAD versus no-CAD territories was larger using dipyridamole (P<0.0001) than dobutamine (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The UR comparison confirms that [99mTc]sestamibi uptake underestimates the blood flow heterogeneity induced by dobutamine more than that produced by dipyridamole.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

AIM: Animal studies suggest an interference of dobutamine on [99mTc]sestamibi uptake. In this study dobutamine was compared to dipyridamole rest-stress [99mTc]sestamibi uptake ratio (UR). METHODS: Twenty-five patients with suspect coronary artery disease (CAD) underwent rest, dobutamine, and dipyridamole [99mTc]sestamibi SPECT at 24-h intervals and coronary angiography. UR was calculated separately for each coronary territory considering injected dose and acquisition delay. RESULTS: There were 38 CAD territories in 20 patients. On a patient basis, dipyridamole SPECT sensitivity was 85%, versus 70% for dobutamine. On a territory basis, sensitivity was 66% versus 42% (P<0.05), and specificity 92% versus 86%, respectively for dipyridamole versus dobutamine. In the 38 CAD territories, dipyridamole UR was -4.1+/-29.4%, and dobutamine UR was -13.1+/-19.9% (P<0.05). In the 37 no-CAD territories, UR was 34+/-23.6% for dipyridamole and -0.4+/-17.8% for dobutamine (P<0.0001). UR difference between CAD versus no-CAD territories was larger using dipyridamole (P<0.0001) than dobutamine (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The UR comparison confirms that [99mTc]sestamibi uptake underestimates the blood flow heterogeneity induced by dobutamine more than that produced by dipyridamole.

Key concepts: Dipyridamole, Dobutamine, Medicine, Coronary artery disease, Technetium Tc 99m Sestamibi, Cardiology, Internal medicine, Coronary angiography

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Decreased [99mTc]Sestamibi uptake with dobutamine versus dipyridamole stress. — Research Paper | ScholarLens