English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective: Similar effects can be achieved during stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) using pharmacological agents to create cardiac stress for patients who are unable to exercise. In our study, we aimed to show the hemodynamic changes and adverse effects caused by adenosine and to compare the results with dipyridamole stress MPS.\udMaterials and Methods: Sixty-five patients with suspected coronary artery disease were included in our study. Fifty patients in whom stress MPS with intravenous adenosine was performed (group A) and 15 patients who underwent oral dipyridamole stress MPS (group B) were retrospectively evaluated. During the test, blood pressure measurements and electrocardiographic follow-up were performed in all patients and side effects were noted.\udResults: At least one side effect occurred in 68% of the group A and in 46% of the group B patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of side effects that occurred during the pharmacological stress. During the maximum stress, there was an increase of 15.80±11.60 beats/min in heart beats in group A and 5.53±4.54 beats/min in group B. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of heart rate increase per minute. When we compared reduction in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups.\udConclusion: Although side effects are more often seen with adenosine, rapid decline in complaints was observed when adenosine infusion was terminated and there was no need for patient follow-up due to short half life of adenosine. We believe that these favourable advantages will increase the use of adenosine in clinical practice

meandros medical and dental journal

Comparison of Adenosine Stress Myocardial Perfusion Scintigraphy and Oral Dipyridamole Stress Myocardial Perfusion Scintigraphy for Hemodynamic Changes and Adverse Effects