American Journal of Cardiology
Volume 105, Issue 1 , Pages 133-135, 1 January 2010

Safety of Regadenoson in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease

  • Wael Aljaroudi, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Tel: (205) 934-0545; fax: (205) 934-7579
  • ,
  • Daniel Hermann, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
  • ,
  • Fadi Hage, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
    • Section of Cardiology, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, Alabama
  • ,
  • Jaekyeong Heo, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
  • ,
  • Ami E. Iskandrian, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama

Received 30 June 2009; received in revised form 4 August 2009; accepted 4 August 2009. published online 19 November 2009.

Regadenoson is a selective A2A receptor agonist that was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for vasodilator stress myocardial perfusion imaging. Because the drug is cleared by renal excretion, its safety in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) needs to be determined. We studied 277 consecutive patients with ESRD who had undergone regadenoson stress gated single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging and compared their side effect profile and safety outcome to those of 134 patients with normal kidney function. The ESRD group included 164 men (59%) and the control group included 73 men (54%; p = NS). The patients with ESRD were younger than the controls (52 ± 11 years vs 61 ± 12 years; p <0.001). The myocardial perfusion imaging findings were abnormal in 53 patients (19%) with ESRD and in 24 patients in the control group (18%; p = NS). The left ventricular ejection fraction was 57 ± 12% in the ESRD group and 64 ± 12% in the control group (p <0.001). The changes in heart rate and systolic blood pressure (from baseline to peak stress) were 20 ± 12 beats/min versus 22 ± 13 beats/min and −11 ± 24 mm Hg versus −12 ± 23 mm Hg in the ESRD and control groups, respectively (p = NS for both). Very few patients in either group reported symptoms during the stress test. No medication-related hospitalizations, serious events, or death occurred in either group within 30 days of the study. In conclusion, this is the first study to document the safety of regadenoson in a large number of patients with ESRD. The drug was well tolerated, and the hemodynamic and side effect profiles were similar to those of patients with normal renal function.

 

 Dr. Iskandrian is a consultant to Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, California, and to Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc., Deerfield, Illinois.

PII: S0002-9149(09)02228-0

doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.08.663

American Journal of Cardiology
Volume 105, Issue 1 , Pages 133-135, 1 January 2010