Literature DB >> 23415635

Comparison of effectiveness of high-dose intracoronary adenosine versus intravenous administration on the assessment of fractional flow reserve in patients with coronary heart disease.

Ramón López-Palop1, Pilar Carrillo, Araceli Frutos, Alberto Cordero, Pilar Agudo, Samer Mashlab, Vicente Bertomeu-Martínez.   

Abstract

Intravenous adenosine is considered the drug of choice to obtain maximum hyperemia in the measurement of the fractional flow reserve (FFR). However, comparative studies performed between intravenous and intracoronary administration have not used high doses of intracoronary adenosine. The present study compared the efficacy and safety of high doses of intracoronary adenosine to intravenous administration when calculating the FFR. Intracoronary bolus doses of 60, 180, 300, and 600 μg adenosine were compared to an intravenous administration of 140 μg/kg/min, 200 μg/kg/min, and 140 μg/kg/min plus an intracoronary bolus of 120 μg. All the cases were performed using the radial approach. FFR was assessed in 102 patients with 108 intermediate lesions by an intracoronary pressure wire. The intracoronary dose of 60 μg was associated with a significantly greater FFR compared to the intravenous infusion (0.02 ± 0.03, p = 0.001). The intracoronary doses of 300 (-0.01 ± 0.00; p = 0.006) and 600 μg (-0.02 ± 0.00; p <0.0005) were significantly associated with a smaller FFR compared to the intravenous infusion. An intracoronary dose of 600 μg revealed a significantly greater percentage of lesions with an FFR <0.80 compared to intravenous infusion at 140 μg/kg/min (37.6 vs 31.5%; p <0.05) and 200 μg/kg/min (37.6 vs 32.4%; p <0.05) and compared to intracoronary doses of 60 (26.9%) and 180 μg (31.5%). In conclusion, an intracoronary bolus dose >300 μg can be equal to or more effective than an intravenous infusion of adenosine in achieving maximum hyperemia when calculating the FFR. Its use could simplify these procedures without having an effect on safety.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23415635     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.01.270

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  11 in total

Review 1.  Coronary physiology assessment in the catheterization laboratory.

Authors:  Felipe Díez-Delhoyo; Enrique Gutiérrez-Ibañes; Gerard Loughlin; Ricardo Sanz-Ruiz; María Eugenia Vázquez-Álvarez; Fernando Sarnago-Cebada; Rocío Angulo-Llanos; Ana Casado-Plasencia; Jaime Elízaga; Francisco Fernández Avilés Diáz
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2015-09-26

Review 2.  Cardiac purinergic signalling in health and disease.

Authors:  Geoffrey Burnstock; Amir Pelleg
Journal:  Purinergic Signal       Date:  2014-12-20       Impact factor: 3.765

3.  Differences between automatically detected and steady-state fractional flow reserve.

Authors:  Tobias Härle; Sven Meyer; Felix Vahldiek; Albrecht Elsässer
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2015-07-25       Impact factor: 5.460

4.  Additional value of transluminal attenuation gradient in CT angiography to predict hemodynamic significance of coronary artery stenosis.

Authors:  Wynand J Stuijfzand; Ibrahim Danad; Pieter G Raijmakers; C Bogdan Marcu; Martijn W Heymans; Cornelis C van Kuijk; Albert C van Rossum; Koen Nieman; James K Min; Jonathon Leipsic; Niels van Royen; Paul Knaapen
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2014-03-13

5.  Fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: does coronary pressure never lie?

Authors:  Tim P van de Hoef; Martijn A van Lavieren; José P S Henriques; Jan J Piek; Bimmer E P M Claessen
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2014-04

6.  Efficacy and Safety of High-Dose Intracoronary Adenosine Injection in Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment.

Authors:  Chien-Boon Jong; Min-Tsun Liao; Tsui-Shan Lu; Shih-Wei Meng; Chun-Kai Chen; Ya-Chin Tsai; Jui-Cheng Kuo; Chih-Cheng Wu
Journal:  Acta Cardiol Sin       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 1.800

7.  Sex-related differences in fractional flow reserve-guided treatment.

Authors:  Jing Li; Charanjit S Rihal; Yoshiki Matsuo; Muhamad Y Elrashidi; Andreas J Flammer; Moo-Sik Lee; Andrew Cassar; Ryan J Lennon; Joerg Herrmann; Malcolm R Bell; David R Holmes; John F Bresnahan; Qi Hua; Lilach O Lerman; Amir Lerman
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2013-10-22       Impact factor: 6.546

Review 8.  Fractional flow reserve as a surrogate for inducible myocardial ischaemia.

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

9.  Relationship between reversibility score on corresponding left ventricular segments and fractional flow reserve in coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Bertalan Kracskó; Ildikó Garai; Sándor Barna; Gábor Tamás Szabó; Ildikó Rácz; Rudolf Kolozsvári; Balázs Tar; Csaba Jenei; József Varga; Zsolt Kõszegi
Journal:  Anatol J Cardiol       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 1.596

10.  Efficacy of ticagrelor in the treatment of stable coronary heart disease: A protocol of systematic review.

Authors:  Qing-Ning Gao
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-11-06       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.