ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2012
Comparison between accelerated and conventional dobutamine stress protocols for myocardial perfusion scintigraphy.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Brazilian Guideline for Exercise Test in the Adult Population - 2024.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Guideline
- Update of the Brazilian Guideline on Nuclear Cardiology - 2020.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Guideline
- Cardiovascular imaging 2012 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The conventional dobutamine (Dob) stress protocol for myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) is long, with frequent adverse effects, and generally requires atropine injection to reach target heart rate. Atropine is usually administered at the end of the protocol, when adverse effects are more frequent. Earlier atropine injection may be useful to shorten the stress protocol and reduce adverse effects. We sought to compare a Dob stress protocol with early atropine injection to a conventional Dob stress protocol in the same patients undergoing MPS. 30 patients underwent Dob-MPS with a conventional protocol (steps of 10, 20, 30 and 40 mcg/kg/min at 3 min intervals, adding atropine to the maximal Dob dose if necessary to achieve 85% of the age-corrected maximal predicted heart rate) and with an accelerated protocol with early atropine injection (at the end of the first stage). We compared stress duration, maximal heart rate (HR), percentage of maximal predicted HR, rate-pressure product, ST changes, MPS scores and the incidence of adverse effects between the 2 protocols. The accelerated protocol was shorter than the conventional protocol (7.1 ± 3.4 min vs. 11.8 ± 1.3 min; P < 0.0001), had the same efficacy to achieve hemodynamic parameters, without increasing adverse effects. The summed stress scores obtained by automatic analysis were similar in both protocols (6.3 ± 6.3 vs. 6.8 ± 6.3; P = NS) as well as the summed difference scores (2.5 ± 3.6 vs. 2.7 ± 3.4; P = NS). Early atropine injection during dobutamine stress protocol shortens stress duration. Our results suggest that patient safety and accuracy of MPS are unaltered, when compared to the conventional protocol, but further, larger studies are still necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.