We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Adequacy of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine-induced maximal coronary hyperemia for fractional flow reserve measurements.
American Heart Journal 2000 October
BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a measure of coronary stenosis severity that is based on pressure measurements obtained at maximal hyperemia. The most widely used pharmacologic stimulus for maximal coronary hyperemia is adenosine, administered either as a continuous intravenous (IV) infusion or intracoronary (IC) bolus. IV adenosine has more side effects and is more costly than IC adenosine but has a more stable and prolonged hyperemic effect.
METHODS: We compared the efficacy of IC and IV adenosine administration for the measurement of FFR in a multicenter trial. Fifty-two patients with 60 lesions underwent determination of FFR with both IV and IC adenosine. IV adenosine was administered as a continuous infusion at a rate of 140 microgram/kg per minute until a steady state hyperemia was achieved. IC adenosine boluses were administered at a dose of 15 to 20 microgram in the right and 18 to 24 microgram in the left coronary artery. FFR was calculated as the ratio of the distal coronary pressure (from pressure guide wire) to the aortic pressure (guide catheter) at maximal hyperemia.
RESULTS: A total of 26 left anterior descending, 23 right, 9 left circumflex, and 3 left main coronary arteries were evaluated. Mean percent stenosis for both groups was 55.8% +/- 23.6% (range 0% to 95%), and mean FFR was 0.78 +/- 0.15 (range 0.41 to 0.98). There was a strong and linear correlation between FFR measurements with IV and IC adenosine (R = 0.978, y = 0. 032 + 0.964x, P <.001). The agreement between the 2 sets of measurements was also high, with a mean difference in FFR of -0.004 +/- 0.03. However, a small random scatter in both directions of FFR measurements was noted with 5 lesions (8.3%) where FFR with IC adenosine was higher by 0.05 or more compared with IV infusions, suggesting a suboptimal hyperemic response in these patients. Changes in heart rate and blood pressure were significantly higher with IV adenosine. Two patients with IV, but none with IC adenosine, had severe side effects (bronchospasm and severe nausea).
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that IC adenosine is equivalent to IV infusion for the determination of FFR in the majority of patients. However, in a small percentage of cases, coronary hyperemia was suboptimal with IC adenosine.
METHODS: We compared the efficacy of IC and IV adenosine administration for the measurement of FFR in a multicenter trial. Fifty-two patients with 60 lesions underwent determination of FFR with both IV and IC adenosine. IV adenosine was administered as a continuous infusion at a rate of 140 microgram/kg per minute until a steady state hyperemia was achieved. IC adenosine boluses were administered at a dose of 15 to 20 microgram in the right and 18 to 24 microgram in the left coronary artery. FFR was calculated as the ratio of the distal coronary pressure (from pressure guide wire) to the aortic pressure (guide catheter) at maximal hyperemia.
RESULTS: A total of 26 left anterior descending, 23 right, 9 left circumflex, and 3 left main coronary arteries were evaluated. Mean percent stenosis for both groups was 55.8% +/- 23.6% (range 0% to 95%), and mean FFR was 0.78 +/- 0.15 (range 0.41 to 0.98). There was a strong and linear correlation between FFR measurements with IV and IC adenosine (R = 0.978, y = 0. 032 + 0.964x, P <.001). The agreement between the 2 sets of measurements was also high, with a mean difference in FFR of -0.004 +/- 0.03. However, a small random scatter in both directions of FFR measurements was noted with 5 lesions (8.3%) where FFR with IC adenosine was higher by 0.05 or more compared with IV infusions, suggesting a suboptimal hyperemic response in these patients. Changes in heart rate and blood pressure were significantly higher with IV adenosine. Two patients with IV, but none with IC adenosine, had severe side effects (bronchospasm and severe nausea).
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that IC adenosine is equivalent to IV infusion for the determination of FFR in the majority of patients. However, in a small percentage of cases, coronary hyperemia was suboptimal with IC adenosine.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app