Hemodynamic responses and adverse effects associated with adenosine and dipyridamole pharmacologic stress testing: A comparison in 2,000 patients

D. L. Johnston, J. R. Daley, D. O. Hodge, M. R. Hopfenspirger, Raymond J Gibbons

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

76 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the hemodynamic responses and the adverse effects associated with two coronary vasodilators used for pharmacologic stress testing. Design: We retrospectively studied the results of adenosine and dipyridamole perfusion imaging in a large group of patients who underwent pharmacologic stress radionuclide perfusion imaging. Material and Methods: One thousand patients given dipyridamole between April 1989 and April 1991 (before adenosine became available) were compared with 1,000 patients given adenosine between April 1991 and October 1992. A standard protocol was used to infuse the drugs before myocardial perfusion imaging with 201Tl or 99mTc sestamibi. Results: Peak heart rate was higher (85 versus 83 beats/min; P = 0.02) and systolic blood pressure was lower (129 versus 133 mm Hg; P<0.0001) with adenosine than with dipyridamole. More patients had a decrease in systolic blood pressure of 30 mm Hg or more with adenosine than with dipyridamole (P = 0.002). Horizontal or downsloping ST-segment depression of 1 mm or more occurred in 9% of patients who received adenosine and in 8% of those who received dipyridamole. Adverse effects occurred in 78% of the adenosine study group and in 50% of the dipyridamole group (P<0.0001). Chest pain was the most common symptom with both drugs. Atrioventricular block occurred in 76 patients who received adenosine but in none who received dipyridamole. Because of adverse effects, 28% of patients who received dipyridamole required extra monitoring time (mean, 6 ± 5 minutes beyond the standard protocol). Aminophylline was administered to 163 and 6 patients, respectively, in the dipyridamole and adenosine study groups. Conclusion: Adenosine causes slightly greater systemic vasodilation than does dipyridamole. Adverse effects occur less often with dipyridamole but, in comparison with adenosine, are more difficult to manage and necessitate more monitoring time as well as fairly frequent intravenous use of aminophylline for reversal.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)331-336
Number of pages6
JournalMayo Clinic Proceedings
Volume70
Issue number4
StatePublished - 1995

Fingerprint

Dipyridamole
Adenosine
Hemodynamics
Blood Pressure
Aminophylline
Perfusion Imaging
Technetium Tc 99m Sestamibi
Myocardial Perfusion Imaging
Atrioventricular Block
Chest Pain
Vasodilator Agents
Vasodilation
Radionuclide Imaging
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Heart Rate

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Hemodynamic responses and adverse effects associated with adenosine and dipyridamole pharmacologic stress testing : A comparison in 2,000 patients. / Johnston, D. L.; Daley, J. R.; Hodge, D. O.; Hopfenspirger, M. R.; Gibbons, Raymond J.

In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Vol. 70, No. 4, 1995, p. 331-336.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ae96649d9787480187d116962e51b841,
title = "Hemodynamic responses and adverse effects associated with adenosine and dipyridamole pharmacologic stress testing: A comparison in 2,000 patients",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the hemodynamic responses and the adverse effects associated with two coronary vasodilators used for pharmacologic stress testing. Design: We retrospectively studied the results of adenosine and dipyridamole perfusion imaging in a large group of patients who underwent pharmacologic stress radionuclide perfusion imaging. Material and Methods: One thousand patients given dipyridamole between April 1989 and April 1991 (before adenosine became available) were compared with 1,000 patients given adenosine between April 1991 and October 1992. A standard protocol was used to infuse the drugs before myocardial perfusion imaging with 201Tl or 99mTc sestamibi. Results: Peak heart rate was higher (85 versus 83 beats/min; P = 0.02) and systolic blood pressure was lower (129 versus 133 mm Hg; P<0.0001) with adenosine than with dipyridamole. More patients had a decrease in systolic blood pressure of 30 mm Hg or more with adenosine than with dipyridamole (P = 0.002). Horizontal or downsloping ST-segment depression of 1 mm or more occurred in 9{\%} of patients who received adenosine and in 8{\%} of those who received dipyridamole. Adverse effects occurred in 78{\%} of the adenosine study group and in 50{\%} of the dipyridamole group (P<0.0001). Chest pain was the most common symptom with both drugs. Atrioventricular block occurred in 76 patients who received adenosine but in none who received dipyridamole. Because of adverse effects, 28{\%} of patients who received dipyridamole required extra monitoring time (mean, 6 ± 5 minutes beyond the standard protocol). Aminophylline was administered to 163 and 6 patients, respectively, in the dipyridamole and adenosine study groups. Conclusion: Adenosine causes slightly greater systemic vasodilation than does dipyridamole. Adverse effects occur less often with dipyridamole but, in comparison with adenosine, are more difficult to manage and necessitate more monitoring time as well as fairly frequent intravenous use of aminophylline for reversal.",
author = "Johnston, {D. L.} and Daley, {J. R.} and Hodge, {D. O.} and Hopfenspirger, {M. R.} and Gibbons, {Raymond J}",
year = "1995",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "70",
pages = "331--336",
journal = "Mayo Clinic Proceedings",
issn = "0025-6196",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hemodynamic responses and adverse effects associated with adenosine and dipyridamole pharmacologic stress testing

T2 - A comparison in 2,000 patients

AU - Johnston, D. L.

AU - Daley, J. R.

AU - Hodge, D. O.

AU - Hopfenspirger, M. R.

AU - Gibbons, Raymond J

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - Objective: To compare the hemodynamic responses and the adverse effects associated with two coronary vasodilators used for pharmacologic stress testing. Design: We retrospectively studied the results of adenosine and dipyridamole perfusion imaging in a large group of patients who underwent pharmacologic stress radionuclide perfusion imaging. Material and Methods: One thousand patients given dipyridamole between April 1989 and April 1991 (before adenosine became available) were compared with 1,000 patients given adenosine between April 1991 and October 1992. A standard protocol was used to infuse the drugs before myocardial perfusion imaging with 201Tl or 99mTc sestamibi. Results: Peak heart rate was higher (85 versus 83 beats/min; P = 0.02) and systolic blood pressure was lower (129 versus 133 mm Hg; P<0.0001) with adenosine than with dipyridamole. More patients had a decrease in systolic blood pressure of 30 mm Hg or more with adenosine than with dipyridamole (P = 0.002). Horizontal or downsloping ST-segment depression of 1 mm or more occurred in 9% of patients who received adenosine and in 8% of those who received dipyridamole. Adverse effects occurred in 78% of the adenosine study group and in 50% of the dipyridamole group (P<0.0001). Chest pain was the most common symptom with both drugs. Atrioventricular block occurred in 76 patients who received adenosine but in none who received dipyridamole. Because of adverse effects, 28% of patients who received dipyridamole required extra monitoring time (mean, 6 ± 5 minutes beyond the standard protocol). Aminophylline was administered to 163 and 6 patients, respectively, in the dipyridamole and adenosine study groups. Conclusion: Adenosine causes slightly greater systemic vasodilation than does dipyridamole. Adverse effects occur less often with dipyridamole but, in comparison with adenosine, are more difficult to manage and necessitate more monitoring time as well as fairly frequent intravenous use of aminophylline for reversal.

AB - Objective: To compare the hemodynamic responses and the adverse effects associated with two coronary vasodilators used for pharmacologic stress testing. Design: We retrospectively studied the results of adenosine and dipyridamole perfusion imaging in a large group of patients who underwent pharmacologic stress radionuclide perfusion imaging. Material and Methods: One thousand patients given dipyridamole between April 1989 and April 1991 (before adenosine became available) were compared with 1,000 patients given adenosine between April 1991 and October 1992. A standard protocol was used to infuse the drugs before myocardial perfusion imaging with 201Tl or 99mTc sestamibi. Results: Peak heart rate was higher (85 versus 83 beats/min; P = 0.02) and systolic blood pressure was lower (129 versus 133 mm Hg; P<0.0001) with adenosine than with dipyridamole. More patients had a decrease in systolic blood pressure of 30 mm Hg or more with adenosine than with dipyridamole (P = 0.002). Horizontal or downsloping ST-segment depression of 1 mm or more occurred in 9% of patients who received adenosine and in 8% of those who received dipyridamole. Adverse effects occurred in 78% of the adenosine study group and in 50% of the dipyridamole group (P<0.0001). Chest pain was the most common symptom with both drugs. Atrioventricular block occurred in 76 patients who received adenosine but in none who received dipyridamole. Because of adverse effects, 28% of patients who received dipyridamole required extra monitoring time (mean, 6 ± 5 minutes beyond the standard protocol). Aminophylline was administered to 163 and 6 patients, respectively, in the dipyridamole and adenosine study groups. Conclusion: Adenosine causes slightly greater systemic vasodilation than does dipyridamole. Adverse effects occur less often with dipyridamole but, in comparison with adenosine, are more difficult to manage and necessitate more monitoring time as well as fairly frequent intravenous use of aminophylline for reversal.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028949419&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028949419&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 7898137

AN - SCOPUS:0028949419

VL - 70

SP - 331

EP - 336

JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

SN - 0025-6196

IS - 4

ER -