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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Janet Wei; Puja K Mehta; B Delia Johnson; Bruce Samuels; Saibal Kar; R David Anderson; Babak Azarbal; John Petersen; Barry Sharaf; Eileen Handberg; Chrisandra Shufelt; Kamlesh Kothawade; George Sopko; Amir Lerman; Leslee Shaw; Sheryl F Kelsey; Carl J Pepine; C Noel Bairey Merz Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Tomasz Pawlowski; Francesco Prati; Tomasz Kulawik; Eleonora Ficarra; Jacek Bil; Robert Gil Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Juan Luis Gutiérrez-Chico; Carlos Cortés; Miłosz Jaguszewski; Michele Schincariol; Ignacio J Amat-Santos; Juan A Franco-Peláez; Grzegorz Żuk; Dariusz Ciećwierz; Wojciech Wojakowski; Felipe Navarro; Shengxian Tu; Borja Ibáñez Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Carl J Pepine; R David Anderson; Barry L Sharaf; Steven E Reis; Karen M Smith; Eileen M Handberg; B Delia Johnson; George Sopko; C Noel Bairey Merz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-06-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Karl H Schuleri; Andrew J Boyle; Marco Centola; Luciano C Amado; Robert Evers; Jeffrey M Zimmet; Kristine S Evers; Katherine M Ostbye; Diana G Scorpio; Joshua M Hare; Albert C Lardo Journal: Comp Med Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 0.982
Authors: Tim P van de Hoef; Martijn Meuwissen; Javier Escaned; Justin E Davies; Maria Siebes; Jos A E Spaan; Jan J Piek Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 32.419