Comparison of maximal myocardial blood flow during adenosine infusion with that of intravenous dipyridamole in normal men

AbstractObjective. This study compared quantitatively the efficacy of intravenous adenosine and dipyridamole for pharmacologic induction of myocardial hyperemia.Background. Pharmacologic vasodilation is used increasingly for induction of myocardial hyperemia in conjunction with radionuclide imaging of myocardial blood flow. Although both intravenous dipyridamole and adenosine have been used, the magnitude of hyperemia induced by these agents and the hyperemia to baseline blood flow ratios have not been quantified and compared.Methods. Twenty normal volunteers were studied with dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) and intravenous nitrogen-13 ammonia. Myocardial blood flow was quantified with a two-compartment tracer kinetic model.Results. Myocardial blood flow at rest averaged 1.1 ± 0.2 ml/min per g and increased significantly to 4.4 ± 0.9 ml/min per g during adenosine and 43 ± 1.3 ml/min per g after dipyridamole administration. Hyperemia to baseline flow ratios averaged 4.3 ± 1.6 for adenosine and 4.0 ± 1.3 for dipyridamole. The average flow ratios and the maximal flows achieved were similar for both agents, but there was considerable variation in the individual response to these agents, as indicated by the range of hyperemia to baseline flow ratios (from 2.0 to 8.4 for adenosine and from 1.5 to 5.8 for dipyridamole). in addition, the hyperemic responses to dipyridamole and to adenosine differed by > 1 ml/min per g in nine subjects.Conclusions. Despite these inter- and istraindividual differences, we conclude that both agents are equally effective in producing myocardial hyperemia

Five-year experience with percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale.

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of cryptogenic stroke, arterial desaturation, decompression illness, and migraine headache (MH). This study evaluated the safety of percutaneous transcatheter PFO closure in patients with cryptogenic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or arterial desaturation. Additionally, symptomatic reduction in MH was determined after interatrial shunt closure. Of the 252 patients referred to the University of California, Los Angeles, with PFO, 131 underwent closure of the interatrial communication with a CardioSEAL (n = 30) or Amplatzer (n = 101) device. PFO morphology was evaluated with transesophageal echocardiography. Follow-up was conducted at 1 to 2 months with echocardiography, with clinical assessment annually thereafter. At an average follow-up of 30 months, there was no recurrence of any thromboembolic event (transient ischemic attack, stroke, or peripheral). There was a reduction in MH, defined as the complete resolution of headache or a >50% reduction in the number of headache days, in 85% of patients after PFO closure. Temporary problems after device implantation, including chest discomfort and palpitations, were reported in 23% of patients and occurred more frequently in patients with nickel hypersensitivity (p <0.05). In conclusion, transcatheter PFO closure is an effective and safe therapeutic modality in the prevention of thromboembolic events and MH associated with interatrial shunting in patients who present with cryptogenic stroke. Pending randomized, controlled trials are necessary to determine if this invasive approach is preferable to medical therapy for the prevention of recurrent stroke or as primary treatment for patients with MH

Five-year experience with percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale.

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of cryptogenic stroke, arterial desaturation, decompression illness, and migraine headache (MH). This study evaluated the safety of percutaneous transcatheter PFO closure in patients with cryptogenic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or arterial desaturation. Additionally, symptomatic reduction in MH was determined after interatrial shunt closure. Of the 252 patients referred to the University of California, Los Angeles, with PFO, 131 underwent closure of the interatrial communication with a CardioSEAL (n = 30) or Amplatzer (n = 101) device. PFO morphology was evaluated with transesophageal echocardiography. Follow-up was conducted at 1 to 2 months with echocardiography, with clinical assessment annually thereafter. At an average follow-up of 30 months, there was no recurrence of any thromboembolic event (transient ischemic attack, stroke, or peripheral). There was a reduction in MH, defined as the complete resolution of headache or a >50% reduction in the number of headache days, in 85% of patients after PFO closure. Temporary problems after device implantation, including chest discomfort and palpitations, were reported in 23% of patients and occurred more frequently in patients with nickel hypersensitivity (p <0.05). In conclusion, transcatheter PFO closure is an effective and safe therapeutic modality in the prevention of thromboembolic events and MH associated with interatrial shunting in patients who present with cryptogenic stroke. Pending randomized, controlled trials are necessary to determine if this invasive approach is preferable to medical therapy for the prevention of recurrent stroke or as primary treatment for patients with MH

Incidence of thrombus formation on the CardioSEAL and the Amplatzer interatrial closure devices.

Transcatheter closure for atrial septal defect (ASD) and patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a promising alternative to surgical closure or anticoagulant therapy. A potential complication is thrombus formation on the device after implantation. From February 2001 to June 2003, 66 patients with atrial communication were treated successfully with the Amplatzer device (16 septal and 20 PFO occluders) or the CardioSEAL device (30). Patients were discharged on antiplatelet medication (aspirin and clopidogrel) and/or anticoagulation. Fifty patients (76%) had transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) 1 month after device implantation (28 +/- 10 days). No patient experienced a thromboembolic episode during follow-up. TEE revealed that thrombus formation occurred more frequently on the CardioSEAL device (5 of 23 patients; 22%) than on the Amplatzer device (0 of 27 patients; 0%) (p = 0.02). Although thrombus disappeared or markedly diminished after additional anticoagulation therapy in 3 patients, 1 patient had surgical explantation of the device due to progressive increase in the size of thrombus with hypermobility despite intensive anticoagulation therapy. There was no variable associated with the presence of thrombus formation on the occluder other than the use of the CardioSEAL device. One month after insertion, the CardioSEAL device is more likely to have thrombus present than the Amplatzer device

Incidence of thrombus formation on the CardioSEAL and the Amplatzer interatrial closure devices.

Transcatheter closure for atrial septal defect (ASD) and patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a promising alternative to surgical closure or anticoagulant therapy. A potential complication is thrombus formation on the device after implantation. From February 2001 to June 2003, 66 patients with atrial communication were treated successfully with the Amplatzer device (16 septal and 20 PFO occluders) or the CardioSEAL device (30). Patients were discharged on antiplatelet medication (aspirin and clopidogrel) and/or anticoagulation. Fifty patients (76%) had transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) 1 month after device implantation (28 +/- 10 days). No patient experienced a thromboembolic episode during follow-up. TEE revealed that thrombus formation occurred more frequently on the CardioSEAL device (5 of 23 patients; 22%) than on the Amplatzer device (0 of 27 patients; 0%) (p = 0.02). Although thrombus disappeared or markedly diminished after additional anticoagulation therapy in 3 patients, 1 patient had surgical explantation of the device due to progressive increase in the size of thrombus with hypermobility despite intensive anticoagulation therapy. There was no variable associated with the presence of thrombus formation on the occluder other than the use of the CardioSEAL device. One month after insertion, the CardioSEAL device is more likely to have thrombus present than the Amplatzer device