Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
 

Learn about the flu shot, COVID-19 vaccine, and our masking policy »

Stanford Health Care

Adequacy of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine-induced maximal coronary hyperemia for fractional flow reserve measurements AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL Jeremias, A., Whitbourn, R. J., Filardo, S. D., Fitzgerald, P. J., Cohen, D. J., Tuzcu, M., Anderson, W. D., Abizaid, A. A., Mintz, G. S., Yeung, A. C., Kern, M. J., Yock, P. G. 2000; 140 (4): 651-657

Abstract

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.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.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).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.

View details for Web of Science ID 000089692600016

View details for PubMedID 11011341