OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess adenosine infusion via a cannula in the back of the hand compared with central venous access to achieve peak hyperemia during fractional flow reserve (FFR). BACKGROUND: Adenosine is often used to induce maximal hyperemia when measuring FFR. The gold standard is continuous infusion via a large central vein; however, the increasing use of the transradial route for angiography makes it desirable to have an alternative route for adenosine. Peripheral venous access is frequently obtained in the hand, but concern exists as to whether adenosine delivery from this site can achieve adequate vasodilation for accurate FFR measurement. Our aim was to address this. METHODS: Subjects were selected from patients presenting for coronary angiography/intervention who required a pressure-wire study. Subjects received intravenous adenosine infusion sequentially via 2 routes: first, via a 20-gauge hand cannula, and then, after a washout period, via a 5- or 6-F femoral venous sheath. Adenosine was administered at 140 μg/kg/min from each site. Data interpretation was blinded. Minimal FFR achieved with intravenous adenosine from each infusion site was recorded as was the time to peak hyperemia. RESULTS: Paired (hand and femoral adenosine) recordings taken from 84 vessels in 61 patients were suitable for blinded analysis. The mean FFR measured using adenosine administered via hand and femoral routes was 0.85 with an SD of 0.08 (intraclass correlation=0.986). Time to peak hyperemia was longer on average with hand-administered adenosine compared with femoral adenosine administration (63 s vs. 43 s; mean difference, 22 s with a 95% confidence interval: 18 s to 27 s; p<0.0001). Formal comparison of FFR stability using Mann-Whitney analysis (2 tailed) gives p=0.43, indicating no significant evidence of a difference in stability between the 2 routes. CONCLUSIONS: Hand vein adenosine infusion produced FFR values very similar to those obtained using central femoral vein adenosine administration, with no systematic bias toward higher or lower reading from 1 site. This has important practical implications for radial access cases involving pressure-wire studies.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess adenosine infusion via a cannula in the back of the hand compared with central venous access to achieve peak hyperemia during fractional flow reserve (FFR). BACKGROUND:Adenosine is often used to induce maximal hyperemia when measuring FFR. The gold standard is continuous infusion via a large central vein; however, the increasing use of the transradial route for angiography makes it desirable to have an alternative route for adenosine. Peripheral venous access is frequently obtained in the hand, but concern exists as to whether adenosine delivery from this site can achieve adequate vasodilation for accurate FFR measurement. Our aim was to address this. METHODS: Subjects were selected from patients presenting for coronary angiography/intervention who required a pressure-wire study. Subjects received intravenous adenosine infusion sequentially via 2 routes: first, via a 20-gauge hand cannula, and then, after a washout period, via a 5- or 6-F femoral venous sheath. Adenosine was administered at 140 μg/kg/min from each site. Data interpretation was blinded. Minimal FFR achieved with intravenous adenosine from each infusion site was recorded as was the time to peak hyperemia. RESULTS: Paired (hand and femoral adenosine) recordings taken from 84 vessels in 61 patients were suitable for blinded analysis. The mean FFR measured using adenosine administered via hand and femoral routes was 0.85 with an SD of 0.08 (intraclass correlation=0.986). Time to peak hyperemia was longer on average with hand-administered adenosine compared with femoral adenosine administration (63 s vs. 43 s; mean difference, 22 s with a 95% confidence interval: 18 s to 27 s; p<0.0001). Formal comparison of FFR stability using Mann-Whitney analysis (2 tailed) gives p=0.43, indicating no significant evidence of a difference in stability between the 2 routes. CONCLUSIONS: Hand vein adenosine infusion produced FFR values very similar to those obtained using central femoral vein adenosine administration, with no systematic bias toward higher or lower reading from 1 site. This has important practical implications for radial access cases involving pressure-wire studies.