Hansen, C.L., Goldstein, R.A., Akinboboye, O.O., Berman, D.S., Botvinick, E.H., Churchwell, K.B., Cooke, C.D., Corbett, J.R., Cullom, S.J., Dahlberg, S.T., Druz, R.S., Ficaro, E.P., Galt, J.R., Garg, R.K., Germano, G., Heller, G.V., Henzlova, M.J., Hyun, M.C., Johnson, L.L., Mann, A., McCallister Jr., B.D., Quaife, R.A., Ruddy, T.D., Sundaram, S.N., Taillefer, R., Ward, R.P. and Mahmarian, J.J. (2007) Myocardial perfusion and function: Single photon emission computed tomography. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 14, e39-e60. doi:10.1016/j.nuclcard.2007.09.023

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Can regadenoson pharmacologic SPECT be performed effectively in patients with left bundle branch block or paced rhythm patients? A retrospective comparison to adenosine SPECT

  AUTHORS: Gurunanthan Palani, Aarthee S. Karthikeyan, Jacobsen Gordon, Karthik Ananthasubramaniam

  KEYWORDS: Regadenoson; Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography; Left Bundle Branch Block; Ventricular Paced Rhythm; Adenosine; False Positive SPECT

  JOURNAL NAME: World Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases, Vol.3 No.2, April 28, 2013

  ABSTRACT: Purpose: Regadenoson (REG) is currently becoming the stress agent of choice in patients undergoing pharmacologic single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). However, in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and ventricular paced rhythm (VPR), hesitation exists amongst clinicians to use REG-SPECT due to the concern that the increased heart rate could cause false positive SPECT results. We sought to evaluate the comparability of A-SPECT and REG-SPECT in patients with LBBB and VPR. Methods: Retrospective study of 30 patients who served as their own controls. All 30 patients who underwent REG-SPECT (Grp 1) were compared to their prior A-SPECT (Grp 2) done within two years prior to REG-SPECT. Heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) parameters, ECG, stress perfusion and gated variables, SPECT ischemia, and side-effects were evaluated. Statistical significance was set at P could be found between the two groups among SPECT parameters. Muscle pain was significantly higher in REG (10.0% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.083) and so was the use of aminophylline (16.7% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.025) to relieve the side-effect. Conclusion: REG-SPECT can be administered in patients with LBBB and VPR patients based on favorable and comparable hemodynamic responses and arrhythmia occurrences to A-SPECT. REG-SPECT can also be used for adequate interpretation of presence or absence of SPECT ischemia particularly in the LAD territory without any concern for false positive perfusion defects.