Key result
Adenosine yields a +0.61 higher myocardial perfusion reserve than dobutamine in HFrEF.
Why the study?
It remained uncertain whether the choice of pharmacological stress agent influences the hyperaemic response required for reliable ischaemia assessment during CMR in patients with HFrEF.
Does adenosine improve hyperaemic response compared to dobutamine in patients with HFrEF undergoing perfusion CMR?
Cross-Sectional (n=63)
Offline analysis blinded to participant and case-control status
Yes
Does adenosine improve hyperaemic response compared to dobutamine in patients with HFrEF undergoing perfusion CMR?
Adenosine elicits a greater hyperaemic response than dobutamine in patients with HFrEF, suggesting it may be a more reliable stress agent for perfusion CMR in this population.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Adenosine may be preferable for hyperaemic stress perfusion CMR in HFrEF; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Aims In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), determining the aetiology of cardiac dysfunction has important therapeutic and prognostic implications. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) enables comprehensive phenotyping of HFrEF; however, it remains uncertain whether the choice of pharmacological stress agent influences the hyperaemic response required for reliable ischaemia assessment. We sought to compare the hyperaemic effects of adenosine and dobutamine in patients with HFrEF using quantitative perfusion CMR. Methods and results Patients with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤ 40%) prospectively underwent 3-Tesla CMR comprising functional cine imaging, late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and first-pass perfusion imaging at rest and during pharmacological stress with (1) adenosine [140-210μg/kg/min] and (2) dobutamine [10-30 µg/kg/min]. Perfusion maps were reconstructed inline with automated, pixel-wise quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF). The hyperaemic response, defined by global myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) was calculated as the quotient of stress and rest MBF and compared between stress protocols. Fifty-three patients with HFrEF (mean age 63 ± 10 years, 77% male, mean LVEF 36 ± 10%, infarction 59%, and non-ischaemic focal fibrosis 21%) with paired adenosine- and dobutamine-stress perfusion data were analysed. Compared with dobutamine, adenosine produced a higher global MPR (mean difference: +0.61 [95% CI: 0.35, 0.88], p < 0.001), which remained significant at the segmental level following adjustment for age, sex, type II diabetes, LVEF and LGE presence (mean difference: +0.63 [95% CI: 0.55, 0.71]; p < 0.001). Conclusions In patients with HFrEF, despite the greater haemodynamic response to dobutamine, adenosine induces a greater hyperaemic response; however, whether this impacts on the diagnostic assessment of ischaemia remains to be established (Trial registration: NCT03661827).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shergill et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=63). Adenosine vs. Dobutamine was evaluated on Global myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) (Mean difference +0.61, 95% CI 0.35-0.88, p=<0.001). In patients with HFrEF, adenosine induced a significantly greater hyperaemic response compared to dobutamine, with a mean difference in global myocardial perfusion reserve of +0.61.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: