Editorial

Pharmacologic Stress Testing

Authors: Thomas F. Heston, MD, FAAFP, FACNP, FASNC

Abstract

Pharmacologic stress testing plays an important role in the diagnosis of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. In many busy nuclear cardiology laboratories, 30 to 40% of all nuclear stress tests are pharmacologic.1 This makes it particularly important for clinicians to understand the indications, complications, and optimal way to perform pharmacologic stress testing. Thus, the comprehensive review by Patel et al2 is timely and valuable. By following these guidelines, our patients can receive the best care and experience the fewest side effects.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Travin MI, Wexler JP. Pharmacological stress testing. Semin Nucl Med 1999;29:298–318.
 
2. Patel RN, et al. Pharmacologic stress myocardial perfusion imaging. South Med J 2007;100:1006–1014.
 
3. Vitola JV, Mormann OJ, Stier AL, et al. Stress Modalities to Evaluate Myocardial Perfusion. In: Vitola JV, Delbeke D, editors. Nuclear cardiology and correlative imaging: a teaching file. New York, Springer-Verlag, 2004, pp 84–120.
 
4. Henzlova MJ, Cerqueira MD, Mahmarian JJ, et al. Stress protocols and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol 2006;13:e80–e90.
 
5. Navare SM, Kapetanopoulos A, Heller GV. Pharmacologic radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging. Curr Cardiol Rep 2003;5:16–24.
 
6. Navare SM, Mather JF, Shaw LJ, et al. Comparison of risk stratification with pharmacologic and exercise stress myocardial perfusion imaging: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Cardiol 2004;11:551–561.
 
7. Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, et al. A prognostic score for prediction of cardiac mortality risk after adenosine stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:722–729.
 
8. Lette J, Tatum JL, Fraser S, et al. Safety of dipyridamole testing in 73,806 patients: the Multicenter Dipyridamole Safety Study. J Nucl Cardiol 1995;2:3–17.
 
9. Tsutsui JM, Elhendy A, Xie F, et al. Safety of dobutamine stress real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:1235–1242.
 
10. Wahl A, Paetsch I, Gollesch A, et al. Safety and feasibility of high-dose dobutamine-atropine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance for diagnosis of myocardial ischaemia: experience in 1000 consecutive cases. Eur Heart J 2004;25:1230–1236.
 
11. Cerqueira MD, Verani MS, Schwaiger M, et al. Safety profile of adenosine stress perfusion imaging: results from the Adenoscan Multicenter Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;23:384–389.
 
12. Zoghbi GJ, Iskandrian AE. Coronary Artery Disease Detection: Pharmacologic Stress. In: Zaret BL, Beller GA, eds. Clinical nuclear cardiology: state of the art and future directions. Philadelphia, Elsevier Mosby, 2005, pp 233–253.