Adenosine versus regadenoson comparative evaluation in myocardial perfusion imaging: Results of the ADVANCE phase 3 multicenter international trial

Ami E. Iskandrian, Timothy M. Bateman, Luiz Belardinelli, Brent Blackburn, Manuel D. Cerqueira, Robert Hendel, Hsiao Lieu, John J. Mahmarian, Ann Olmsted, S. Richard Underwood, João Vitola, Whedy Wang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

229 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Earlier phase 1 and 2 studies have shown that regadenoson has desirable features as a stress agent for myocardial perfusion imaging. Methods and Results: This multicenter, double-blinded phase 3 trial involved 784 patients at 54 sites. Each patient underwent 2 sets of gated single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging studies: an initial qualifying study with adenosine and a subsequent randomized study with either regadenoson (2/3 of patients) or adenosine. Regadenoson was administered as a rapid bolus (<10 seconds) of 400 μg. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate noninferiority by showing that the difference in the strength of agreement in detecting reversible defects, based on blinded reading, between sequential adenosine-regadenoson images and adenosine-adenosine images, lay above a prespecified noninferiority margin. Other prospectively defined safety and tolerability comparisons and supporting analyses were also performed. The average agreement rate based on the median of 3 independent blinded readers was 0.63 ± 0.03 for regadenoson-adenosine and 0.64 ± 0.04 for adenosine-adenosine-a 1% absolute difference with the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval lying above the prespecified noninferiority margin. Side-by-side interpretation of regadenoson and adenosine images provided comparable results for detecting reversible defects. The peak increase in heart rate was greater with regadenoson than adenosine, but the blood pressure nadir was similar. A summed symptom score of flushing, chest pain, and dyspnea was less with regadenoson than adenosine (P = .013). Conclusions: This phase 3 trial shows that regadenoson provides diagnostic information comparable to a standard adenosine infusion. There were no serious drug-related side effects, and regadenoson was better tolerated than adenosine.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)645-658
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Nuclear Cardiology
Volume14
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Myocardial Perfusion Imaging
Adenosine
Multicenter Studies
regadenoson
Single-Photon Emission-Computed Tomography
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Chest Pain
Dyspnea
Reading

Keywords

  • Adenosine
  • coronary artery disease
  • ischemia
  • perfusion imaging
  • regadenoson
  • single photon emission computed tomography
  • stress imaging

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Adenosine versus regadenoson comparative evaluation in myocardial perfusion imaging : Results of the ADVANCE phase 3 multicenter international trial. / Iskandrian, Ami E.; Bateman, Timothy M.; Belardinelli, Luiz; Blackburn, Brent; Cerqueira, Manuel D.; Hendel, Robert; Lieu, Hsiao; Mahmarian, John J.; Olmsted, Ann; Underwood, S. Richard; Vitola, João; Wang, Whedy.

In: Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, Vol. 14, No. 5, 01.09.2007, p. 645-658.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Iskandrian, AE, Bateman, TM, Belardinelli, L, Blackburn, B, Cerqueira, MD, Hendel, R, Lieu, H, Mahmarian, JJ, Olmsted, A, Underwood, SR, Vitola, J & Wang, W 2007, 'Adenosine versus regadenoson comparative evaluation in myocardial perfusion imaging: Results of the ADVANCE phase 3 multicenter international trial', Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 645-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclcard.2007.06.114
Iskandrian, Ami E. ; Bateman, Timothy M. ; Belardinelli, Luiz ; Blackburn, Brent ; Cerqueira, Manuel D. ; Hendel, Robert ; Lieu, Hsiao ; Mahmarian, John J. ; Olmsted, Ann ; Underwood, S. Richard ; Vitola, João ; Wang, Whedy. / Adenosine versus regadenoson comparative evaluation in myocardial perfusion imaging : Results of the ADVANCE phase 3 multicenter international trial. In: Journal of Nuclear Cardiology. 2007 ; Vol. 14, No. 5. pp. 645-658.
@article{16caa85cc99b45a49242c8616c3358b0,
title = "Adenosine versus regadenoson comparative evaluation in myocardial perfusion imaging: Results of the ADVANCE phase 3 multicenter international trial",
abstract = "Background: Earlier phase 1 and 2 studies have shown that regadenoson has desirable features as a stress agent for myocardial perfusion imaging. Methods and Results: This multicenter, double-blinded phase 3 trial involved 784 patients at 54 sites. Each patient underwent 2 sets of gated single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging studies: an initial qualifying study with adenosine and a subsequent randomized study with either regadenoson (2/3 of patients) or adenosine. Regadenoson was administered as a rapid bolus (<10 seconds) of 400 μg. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate noninferiority by showing that the difference in the strength of agreement in detecting reversible defects, based on blinded reading, between sequential adenosine-regadenoson images and adenosine-adenosine images, lay above a prespecified noninferiority margin. Other prospectively defined safety and tolerability comparisons and supporting analyses were also performed. The average agreement rate based on the median of 3 independent blinded readers was 0.63 ± 0.03 for regadenoson-adenosine and 0.64 ± 0.04 for adenosine-adenosine-a 1{\%} absolute difference with the lower limit of the 95{\%} confidence interval lying above the prespecified noninferiority margin. Side-by-side interpretation of regadenoson and adenosine images provided comparable results for detecting reversible defects. The peak increase in heart rate was greater with regadenoson than adenosine, but the blood pressure nadir was similar. A summed symptom score of flushing, chest pain, and dyspnea was less with regadenoson than adenosine (P = .013). Conclusions: This phase 3 trial shows that regadenoson provides diagnostic information comparable to a standard adenosine infusion. There were no serious drug-related side effects, and regadenoson was better tolerated than adenosine.",
keywords = "Adenosine, coronary artery disease, ischemia, perfusion imaging, regadenoson, single photon emission computed tomography, stress imaging",
author = "Iskandrian, {Ami E.} and Bateman, {Timothy M.} and Luiz Belardinelli and Brent Blackburn and Cerqueira, {Manuel D.} and Robert Hendel and Hsiao Lieu and Mahmarian, {John J.} and Ann Olmsted and Underwood, {S. Richard} and Jo{\~a}o Vitola and Whedy Wang",
year = "2007",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.nuclcard.2007.06.114",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "645--658",
journal = "Journal of Nuclear Cardiology",
issn = "1071-3581",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adenosine versus regadenoson comparative evaluation in myocardial perfusion imaging

T2 - Results of the ADVANCE phase 3 multicenter international trial

AU - Iskandrian, Ami E.

AU - Bateman, Timothy M.

AU - Belardinelli, Luiz

AU - Blackburn, Brent

AU - Cerqueira, Manuel D.

AU - Hendel, Robert

AU - Lieu, Hsiao

AU - Mahmarian, John J.

AU - Olmsted, Ann

AU - Underwood, S. Richard

AU - Vitola, João

AU - Wang, Whedy

PY - 2007/9/1

Y1 - 2007/9/1

N2 - Background: Earlier phase 1 and 2 studies have shown that regadenoson has desirable features as a stress agent for myocardial perfusion imaging. Methods and Results: This multicenter, double-blinded phase 3 trial involved 784 patients at 54 sites. Each patient underwent 2 sets of gated single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging studies: an initial qualifying study with adenosine and a subsequent randomized study with either regadenoson (2/3 of patients) or adenosine. Regadenoson was administered as a rapid bolus (<10 seconds) of 400 μg. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate noninferiority by showing that the difference in the strength of agreement in detecting reversible defects, based on blinded reading, between sequential adenosine-regadenoson images and adenosine-adenosine images, lay above a prespecified noninferiority margin. Other prospectively defined safety and tolerability comparisons and supporting analyses were also performed. The average agreement rate based on the median of 3 independent blinded readers was 0.63 ± 0.03 for regadenoson-adenosine and 0.64 ± 0.04 for adenosine-adenosine-a 1% absolute difference with the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval lying above the prespecified noninferiority margin. Side-by-side interpretation of regadenoson and adenosine images provided comparable results for detecting reversible defects. The peak increase in heart rate was greater with regadenoson than adenosine, but the blood pressure nadir was similar. A summed symptom score of flushing, chest pain, and dyspnea was less with regadenoson than adenosine (P = .013). Conclusions: This phase 3 trial shows that regadenoson provides diagnostic information comparable to a standard adenosine infusion. There were no serious drug-related side effects, and regadenoson was better tolerated than adenosine.

AB - Background: Earlier phase 1 and 2 studies have shown that regadenoson has desirable features as a stress agent for myocardial perfusion imaging. Methods and Results: This multicenter, double-blinded phase 3 trial involved 784 patients at 54 sites. Each patient underwent 2 sets of gated single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging studies: an initial qualifying study with adenosine and a subsequent randomized study with either regadenoson (2/3 of patients) or adenosine. Regadenoson was administered as a rapid bolus (<10 seconds) of 400 μg. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate noninferiority by showing that the difference in the strength of agreement in detecting reversible defects, based on blinded reading, between sequential adenosine-regadenoson images and adenosine-adenosine images, lay above a prespecified noninferiority margin. Other prospectively defined safety and tolerability comparisons and supporting analyses were also performed. The average agreement rate based on the median of 3 independent blinded readers was 0.63 ± 0.03 for regadenoson-adenosine and 0.64 ± 0.04 for adenosine-adenosine-a 1% absolute difference with the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval lying above the prespecified noninferiority margin. Side-by-side interpretation of regadenoson and adenosine images provided comparable results for detecting reversible defects. The peak increase in heart rate was greater with regadenoson than adenosine, but the blood pressure nadir was similar. A summed symptom score of flushing, chest pain, and dyspnea was less with regadenoson than adenosine (P = .013). Conclusions: This phase 3 trial shows that regadenoson provides diagnostic information comparable to a standard adenosine infusion. There were no serious drug-related side effects, and regadenoson was better tolerated than adenosine.

KW - Adenosine

KW - coronary artery disease

KW - ischemia

KW - perfusion imaging

KW - regadenoson

KW - single photon emission computed tomography

KW - stress imaging

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34548394451&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34548394451&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.nuclcard.2007.06.114

DO - 10.1016/j.nuclcard.2007.06.114

M3 - Article

C2 - 17826318

AN - SCOPUS:34548394451

VL - 14

SP - 645

EP - 658

JO - Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

JF - Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

SN - 1071-3581

IS - 5

ER -