How to assess nonresponsiveness to vasodilator stress.

Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is a powerful tool for the functional assessment of ischemia in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD). Given that the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of MPI and post-test management are highly dependent on achieving an adequate stress vasodilatory response, it is critical to identify those who may not have adequately responded to vasodilator pharmacological stress agents such as adenosine, dipyridamole, and regadenoson. Caffeine, a potent inhibitor of the adenosine receptor, is a compound that can affect vasodilatory hemodynamics, result in false negative studies, and potentially alter management in cases of inaccurate test results. Vasodilator non-responsiveness can be suspected by examining hemodynamics, quantitative positron emission tomography (PET) metrics such as myocardial flow reserve (MFR), and splenic response to stress. Quantitative MFR values of 1-1.2 should raise suspicion for nonresponsiveness in the setting of normal perfusion, along with the absence of a splenic switch off. Newer metrics, such as splenic response ratio, can be used to aid in the identification of potential nonresponders to pharmacologic vasodilators.

Effect of variable left ventricular ejection fraction assessed by equilibrium radionuclide angiocardiography using different software packages on the diagnosis of cardiotoxicity in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: The equilibrium radionuclide angiocardiography (ERNA) scan is an established imaging modality for assessing left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in oncology patients. This study aimed to explore the interchangeability of two commercially available software packages (MIM and JS) for LVEF measurement for a cancer-therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) diagnosis. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study among 322 patients who underwent ERNA scans. A total of 582 scans were re-processed using MIM and JS for cross-sectional and longitudinal LVEF measurements. RESULTS: The median LVEF for MIM and JS were 56% and 66%, respectively (P < 0.001). LVEF processed by JS was 9.91% higher than by MIM. In 87 patients with longitudinal ERNA scans, serial studies processed by MIM were classified as having CTRCD in a higher proportion than serial studies processed by JS (26.4% vs 11.4%, P = 0.020). There were no significant differences in intra- or inter-observer LVEF measurement variability (R = 0.99, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Software packages for processing ERNA studies are not interchangeable; thus, reports of ERNA studies should include details on the post-processing software. Serial ERNA studies should be processed on the same software when feasible to avoid discrepancies in the diagnosis and management of CTRCD.