Hemodynamic and Respiratory Effects of Regadenoson During Radiologic Imaging in Infants and Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myocardial perfusion imaging using radionuclides is a well-validated, noninvasive method to aid in the diagnosis of patients with suspected or known myocardial ischemia. To increase the sensitivity of the technique, pharmacologic agents which induce coronary vasodilatation are administered. Regadenoson is a novel selective A2A receptor agonist that has similar efficacy to adenosine for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a more favorable adverse effect profile and is the most widely used pharmacologic stress agent. While widely used in adults, there is limited experience with it in pediatrics, particularly young children. METHODS: The current study retrospectively reviews our experience with stress cardiac MRI using regadenoson in children requiring general anesthesia. The study cohort included eight patients, all male, ranging in age from 2 to 6.2 years (mean age of 4.2 years) and in weight from 10 to 30.5 kg (mean weight of 18.5 kg). All patients received general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation and a volatile anesthetic agent. RESULTS: Heart rate 1 min prior to regadenoson was 99 ± 19.2 (mean ± standard deviation (SD)) beats per minute. Peak heart rate was achieved at an average of 4 min post regadenoson administration with a mean heart rate of 122 ± 15 beats per minute. The average of the mean arterial pressure 1 min prior to regadenoson was 53.4 ± 5.2 mm Hg. Mean arterial pressure nadir was noted at 6 min post regadenoson with a value of 44.1 ± 6.3 mm Hg. Blood pressure support with phenylephrine was required in four of the eight (50%) of patients. No adverse respiratory events were noted. Only one of the eight (13%) patients had a perfusion defect but had preserved ventricular function and recovered without incident. CONCLUSIONS: Use of regadenoson in pediatric patients requiring general anesthesia is safe and feasible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".