Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) has differences in prevalence and presentation between women and men; however, we have limited understanding about underlying contributors to sex differences in CMD. Myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPRI), as semi-quantitative measure of myocardial perfusion derived from cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging has been validated as a measure of CMD. We sought to understand the sex differences in the relations between the MPRI and traditional measures of cardiovascular disease by CMR.

A retrospective analysis of a single-center cohort of patients receiving clinical stress CMR from 2015 to 2022 was performed. Patients with calculated MPRI and no visible perfusion defects consistent with obstructive epicardial coronary disease were included. We compared associations between MPRI versus traditional cardiovascular risk factors and markers of cardiac structure/function in sex-stratified populations using univariable and multivariable regression models.

A total of 229 patients [193 female, 36 male, median age 57 (47-67) years] were included in the analysis. In the female population, no traditional cardiovascular risk factors were associated with MPRI, whereas in the male population, diabetes (β: -0.80, p = 0.03) and hyperlipidemia (β: -0.76, p = 0.006) were both associated with reduced MPRI in multivariable models. Multivariable models revealed significant associations between reduced MPRI and increased ascending aortic diameter (β: -0.42, p = 0.005) and T1 times (β: -0.0056, p = 0.03) in the male population, and increased T1 times (β: -0.0037, p = 0.006) and LVMI (β: -0.022, p = 0.0003) in the female population.

The findings suggest different underlying pathophysiology of CMD in men versus women, with lower MPRI in male patients fitting a more "traditional" atherosclerotic profile.

Adenosine is a ubiquitous endogenous nucleoside or autacoid that affects the cardiovascular system through the activation of four G-protein coupled receptors: adenosine A₁ receptor (A₁AR), adenosine A_2A receptor (A_2AAR), adenosine A_2B receptor (A_2BAR), and adenosine A₃ receptor (A₃AR). With the rapid generation of this nucleoside from cellular metabolism and the widespread distribution of its four G-protein coupled receptors in almost all organs and tissues of the body, this autacoid induces multiple physiological as well as pathological effects, not only regulating the cardiovascular system but also the central nervous system, peripheral vascular system, and immune system. Mounting evidence shows the role of CYP450-enzymes in cardiovascular physiology and pathology, and the genetic polymorphisms in CYP450s can increase susceptibility to cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). One of the most important physiological roles of CYP450-epoxygenases (CYP450-2C & CYP2J2) is the metabolism of arachidonic acid (AA) and linoleic acid (LA) into epoxyeicosatrienoic acids (EETs) and epoxyoctadecaenoic acid (EpOMEs) which generally involve in vasodilation. Like an increase in coronary reactive hyperemia (CRH), an increase in anti-inflammation, and cardioprotective effects. Moreover, the genetic polymorphisms in CYP450-epoxygenases will change the beneficial cardiovascular effects of metabolites or oxylipins into detrimental effects. The soluble epoxide hydrolase (sEH) is another crucial enzyme ubiquitously expressed in all living organisms and almost all organs and tissues. However, in contrast to CYP450-epoxygenases, sEH converts EETs into dihydroxyeicosatrienoic acid (DHETs), EpOMEs into dihydroxyoctadecaenoic acid (DiHOMEs), and others and reverses the beneficial effects of epoxy-fatty acids leading to vasoconstriction, reducing CRH, increase in pro-inflammation, increase in pro-thrombotic and become less cardioprotective. Therefore, polymorphisms in the sEH gene (Ephx2) cause the enzyme to become overactive, making it more vulnerable to CVDs, including hypertension. Besides the sEH, ω-hydroxylases (CYP450-4A11 & CYP450-4F2) derived metabolites from AA, ω terminal-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acids (19-, 20-HETE), lipoxygenase-derived mid-chain hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acids (5-, 11-, 12-, 15-HETEs), and the cyclooxygenase-derived prostanoids (prostaglandins: PGD₂, PGF_2α; thromboxane: Txs, oxylipins) are involved in vasoconstriction, hypertension, reduction in CRH, pro-inflammation and cardiac toxicity. Interestingly, the interactions of adenosine receptors (A_2AAR, A₁AR) with CYP450-epoxygenases, ω-hydroxylases, sEH, and their derived metabolites or oxygenated polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs or oxylipins) is shown in the regulation of the cardiovascular functions. In addition, much evidence demonstrates polymorphisms in CYP450-epoxygenases, ω-hydroxylases, and sEH genes (Ephx2) and adenosine receptor genes (ADORA1 & ADORA2) in the human population with the susceptibility to CVDs, including hypertension. CVDs are the number one cause of death globally, coronary artery disease (CAD) was the leading cause of death in the US in 2019, and hypertension is one of the most potent causes of CVDs. This review summarizes the articles related to the crosstalk between adenosine receptors and CYP450-derived oxylipins in vascular, including the CRH response in regular salt-diet fed and high salt-diet fed mice with the correlation of heart perfusate/plasma oxylipins. By using A_2AAR^-/-, A₁AR^-/-, eNOS^-/-, sEH^-/- or Ephx2^-/-, vascular sEH-overexpressed (Tie2-sEH Tr), vascular CYP2J2-overexpressed (Tie2-CYP2J2 Tr), and wild-type (WT) mice. This review article also summarizes the role of pro-and anti-inflammatory oxylipins in cardiovascular function/dysfunction in mice and humans. Therefore, more studies are needed better to understand the crosstalk between the adenosine receptors and eicosanoids to develop diagnostic and therapeutic tools by using plasma oxylipins profiles in CVDs, including hypertensive cases in the future.

Regadenoson is a selective adenosine receptor agonist. It is currently unclear if the level of hyperemia differs between stress agents. We compared Myocardial Blood Flow (MBF) and Myocardial Flow Reserve (MFR) response on CZT-SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (MPI) to evaluate if dipyridamole and regadenoson could induce the same level of hyperemia.

228 patients with dynamic CZT-SPECT MPI were retrospectively analyzed (66 patients stressed with regadenoson and 162 with dipyridamole) in terms of MBF and MFR. To rule out confounding factors, two groups of 41 patients were matched for clinical characteristics in a sub-analysis, excluding high cardiovascular risk patients.

Overall stress MBF was higher in regadenoson patients (1.71 ± 0.73 vs. 1.44 ± 0.55 mL·min-1·g-1 for regadenoson and dipyridamole, respectively, p < .05). However, when confounding factors were ruled out, stress MBF (1.57 ± 0.56 vs. 1.61 ± 0.62 mL·min-1·g-1 for dipyridamole and regadenoson, respectively, p = .88) and MFR (2.62 ± 0.77 vs. 2.46 ± 0.76 for dipyridamole and regadenoson, respectively, p = .40) were not different between regadenoson and dipyridamole.

Our results suggest that dipyridamole and regadenoson induce equivalent hyperemia in dynamic SPECT with similar stress MBF and MFR in comparable patients.

Small studies have shown that adenosine is equivalent to regadenoson when obtaining coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements. A study that also evaluates time and safety of aminophylline reversal of regadenoson effects has not been presented.

Reversal of regadenoson with aminophylline is safe and equivalent to adenosine for FFR measurements.

Forty-six consecutive patients who underwent clinically indicated FFRs at the time of coronary angiography were enrolled between 4/2012 and 5/2014. Each patient had FFR measured using adenosine 140 mcg/kg/min IV, and following return to baseline, FFR was measured using regadenoson 400 mcg IV, which then was reversed with aminophylline 150 mg IV. Time to baseline hemodynamics was measured. Agreement between the two assessments was compared using linear regression.

FFR results were similar with both agents (R² = 0.935, P < 0.0001). Also, using the 0.80 cutoff for significantly depressed FFR, there was no divergence regarding studies' significance. After aminophylline reversal of regadenoson, hemodynamics returned to baseline in 111 ± 71 seconds. There were no unexpected side effects or complications.

For FFR measurement, regadenoson and adenosine are equivalent hyperemic agents. Regadenoson with aminophylline reversal may be considered as an alternative to adenosine for FFR measurements.

AIMThe study aims to test whether simultaneous measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR), coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) is feasible, safe and effective during regadenoson-induced hyperemia.METHODS AND RESULTSFFR, CFR and IMR were measured simultaneously during regadenoson (Rapiscan 400 μg) -induced hyperemia in 50 patients with stable coronary artery disease with a SYNTAX score of <22. Simultaneous measurement of FFR, CFR and IMR was technically feasible in all cases (50/50). No side effects occurred and even patients fulfilling classical contraindications for the use of adenosine (10/50) could be included. Regadenoson-induced hyperemia remained stable after maximal pressure drop for more than 35 sec as measured by systemic aortic and distal coronary pressure. There was a significant drop in transit mean time from baseline to hyperemia of more than 50% (1.0 ± 0.6 s vs. 0.4 ± 0.2 s, p <  0.01). Patients' mean IMR value was 23.4, and IMR values above 75th percentile significantly correlated with metformin demanding diabetes mellitus with OR 21.76 and nicotine abuse with OR 10.28.CONCLUSIONA single intravenous regadenoson bolus via peripheral line increases coronary blood flow without harmful systemic side effects enabling interventionists to simultaneously assess FFR, CFR and IMR in patients with stable coronary artery disease.

Risk stratification and early detection of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is essential in orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) patients. This study assesses the changes in myocardial blood flow (MBF) noninvasively in OHT patients using quantitative cardiac PET with regadenoson.

Twelve patients (Group 1) (8 males, 4 females, mean age 55 ± 7 years) with no history of post OHT myocardial ischemia were enrolled 5.4 ± 2.0 years after OHT. Fifteen patients (Group 2) (9 males, 6 females, mean age 71 ± 9 years) with intermediate pretest probability but not documented evidence for coronary artery disease (CAD) were also included to serve as control. Global and regional MBFs were assessed using dynamic 13N-NH3 PET at rest and during regadenoson-induced hyperemia. The coronary flow reserve (CFR) was also calculated as the ratio of hyperemic to resting MBF.

Mean regadenoson-induced rate-pressure products were similar in both groups, while there was an increase in resting rate-pressure product in Group 1 patients. Both mean and median values of resting MBF were higher in Group 1 than Group 2 patients (1.33 ± 0.31 and 1.01 ± 0.21 mL/min/g for Groups 1 and 2, respectively, P < .001), while mean hyperemic MBF values were similar in both Groups (2.68 ± 0.84 and 2.64 ± 0.94 mL/min/g, P = NS) but median hyperemic MBF values were lower in Group 1 than Group 2 patients (2.0 vs. 2.60 mL/min/g, P = .018). Both mean and median CFR values demonstrated a significant reduction for Group 1 compared to Group 2 patients (2.07 ± 0.74 vs 2.63 ± 0.48, P = .025).

This study suggests that the MBF in OHT patients may be abnormal at resting state with diminished CFR. This hints that the epicardial and microvascular coronary subsystem may be exacerbated after OHT leading to the gradual progression of CAV.

FFR is useful in defining the physiological significance of intermediate coronary stenosis and requires induction of maximal hyperemia and measurement of pressure proximal and distal to the stenosis. Hyperemia normally is induced by either IV or IC adenosine, a medication associated with short-term side effects. IV regadenoson and IC nitroprusside have been suggested as viable alternatives. This meta-analysis aims to identify all studies comparing use of intravenous (IV) regadenoson or intracoronary (IC) nitroprusside with IV adenosine to determine differences related to the agent utilized for assessment of fractional flow reserve (FFR).

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library databases for studies comparing IV regadenoson or IC nitroprusside to IV adenosine for FFR assessment. The main outcome was difference in mean FFR measurement. The main secondary outcomes were composite side-effect profile and reclassification of lesions.

Seven studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 375 patients. Compared to IV adenosine, there was no difference in the mean FFR derived from IV regadenoson (p=1.0) or IC nitroprusside (p=0.48). IV regadenoson was associated with 53% lower risk of pooled side effects compared to IV adenosine (p=0.05). IC nitroprusside was associated with 97% lower risk of pooled side effects compared to IV adenosine (p<0.001).

IV regadenoson and IC nitroprusside produce similar pressure-derived FFR measurements compared to IV adenosine and have a favorable side effect profile. Both can be considered as alternative agents to IV adenosine for FFR measurement. Further clinical validation is warranted.