MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1161/circinterventions.119.007893

Медицинская библиотека · Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions · 2019

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

Wijntjens Gilbert W M, van Uffelen Ellen L, Echavarría-Pinto Mauro, Casadonte Lorena, Stegehuis Valérie E, Murai Tadashi, Marques Koen M J, Yoon Myeong-Ho, Tahk Seung-Jea, Casella Gianni, Leone Antonio M, López Palop Ramón, Schlundt Christian, Rivero Fernando, Petraco Ricardo, Fearon William F, Johnson Nils P, Jeremias Allen, Koo Bon-Kwon, Piek Jan J, van de Hoef Tim P

СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

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.

Для цитирования: Wijntjens Gilbert W M, van Uffelen Ellen L, Echavarría-Pinto Mauro, Casadonte Lorena, Stegehuis Valérie E, Murai Tadashi, Marques Koen M J, Yoon Myeong-Ho, Tahk Seung-Jea, Casella Gianni, Leone Antonio M, López Palop Ramón, Schlundt Christian, Rivero Fernando, Petraco Ricardo, Fearon William F, Johnson Nils P, Jeremias Allen, Koo Bon-Kwon, Piek Jan J, van de Hoef Tim P. Individual Lesion-Level Meta-Analysis Comparing Various Doses of Intracoronary Bolus Injection of Adenosine With Intravenous Administration of Adenosine for Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment.. Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions. 2019. DOI: 10.1161/circinterventions.119.007893.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.