科学研究 - The Left Main and Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesion Summit (CBS)

文章摘要

Individual Lesion-Level Meta-Analysis Comparing Various Doses of Intracoronary Bolus Injection of Adenosine With Intravenous Administration of Adenosine for Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment
Endocardium Minimally Contributes to Coronary Endothelium in the Embryonic Ventricular Free Walls
Volumetric characterization of human coronary calcification by frequency-domain optical coherence tomography
Covering our tracks – optical coherence tomography to assess vascular healing
Low Endothelial Shear Stress Predicts Evolution to High-Risk Coronary Plaque Phenotype in the Future: A Serial Optical Coherence Tomography and Computational Fluid Dynamics Study
Intravascular ultrasound-guided unprotected left main coronary artery stenting in the elderly
Pulmonary vascular lesions occurring in patients with chronic major vessel thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension
Mitral Valve Remodeling and Strain in Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: Comparison With Primary Regurgitation and Normal Valves
Long-term safety and effectiveness of unprotected left main coronary stenting with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents
Coronary Access After TAVR With a Self-Expanding Bioprosthesis: Insights From Computed Tomography

|<<... 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 ...>>|

Review Article

January 2020 Vol 13, Issue 1

JOURNAL：Circ Cardiovasc Interv.

Individual Lesion-Level Meta-Analysis Comparing Various Doses of Intracoronary Bolus Injection of Adenosine With Intravenous Administration of Adenosine for Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment

GWM Wijntjens , EL van Uffelen, TP van de Hoef et al.

5057

Keywords: ntravenous infusion vs intracoronary bolus injection; adenosine; FFR assessment

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - Intravenous infusion of adenosine is considered standard practice for fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment but is associated with adverse side-effects and is time-consuming. Intracoronary bolus injection of adenosine is better tolerated by patients, cheaper, and less time-consuming. However, current literature remains fragmented and modestly sized regarding the equivalence of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine. We aim to investigate the relationship between intracoronary adenosine and intravenous adenosine to determine FFR.

METHODS - We performed a lesion-level meta-analysis to compare intracoronary adenosine with intravenous adenosine (140 µg/kg per minute) for FFR assessment. The search was conducted in accordance to the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. Lesion-level data were obtained by contacting the respective authors or by digitization of scatterplots using custom-made software. Intracoronary adenosine dose was defined as; low: <40 µg, intermediate: 40 to 99 µg, and high: ≥100 µg.

RESULTS - We collected 1972 FFR measurements (1413 lesions) comparing intracoronary with intravenous adenosine from 16 studies. There was a strong correlation (correlation coefficient =0.915; P<0.001) between intracoronary-FFR and intravenous-FFR. Mean FFR was 0.81±0.11 for intracoronary adenosine and 0.81±0.11 for intravenous adenosine (P<0.001). We documented a nonclinically relevant mean difference of 0.006 (limits of agreement: −0.066 to 0.078) between the methods. When stratified by the intracoronary adenosine dose, mean differences between intracoronary and intravenous-FFR amounted to 0.004, 0.011, or 0.000 FFR units for low-dose, intermediate-dose, and high-dose intracoronary adenosine, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS - The present study documents clinically irrelevant differences in FFR values obtained with intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine. Intracoronary adenosine hence confers a practical and patient-friendly alternative for intravenous adenosine for FFR assessment.