Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2019
Comparison of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine-induced maximal hyperemia for fractional flow reserve measurement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Abo-Aly Mohamed, Lolay Georges, Adams Christopher, Ahmed Ahmed Elsharawy, Abdel-Latif Ahmed, Ziada Khaled M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature comparing fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements after administration of adenosine using intracoronary (IC) bolus versus standard continuous intravenous (IV) infusion.
BACKGROUND: FFR is considered the gold standard for invasive assessment of coronary lesions of intermediate severity. IV adenosine is recommended to induce hyperemia; however, IC adenosine is widely used for convenience. The difference between IV and IC administration in lesions assessment is not well studied.
METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE and relevant databases for studies comparing IV with IC adenosine administration for FFR measurement. We reviewed data pertaining to adenosine doses, side effects, and FFR values.
RESULTS: Eight studies addressing the primary question were identified. Dose of IC adenosine varied between 36 and 600 μg. Compared to IV adenosine infusion, the sensitivity of IC administration is 0.805 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.664-0.896; p < .001), specificity is 0.965 (95% CI: 0.932-0.983; p < .001), positive likelihood ratio is 24.218 (95% CI: 12,263-47.830; p < .001), negative likelihood ratio is 0.117 (95% CI: 0.033-0.411; p < .01), and diagnostic odds ratio is 274.225 [95% CI: 92.731-810.946; p < .001]. Overall, hemodynamic side effects and symptoms were reported more frequently with IV adenosine.
CONCLUSIONS: The available literature suggests that IC adenosine is well tolerated and may provide equivalent diagnostic accuracy compared to IV administration. However, variability in dosing regimens does not allow definitive conclusions regarding noninferiority of IC approach compared to IV administration.
BACKGROUND: FFR is considered the gold standard for invasive assessment of coronary lesions of intermediate severity. IV adenosine is recommended to induce hyperemia; however, IC adenosine is widely used for convenience. The difference between IV and IC administration in lesions assessment is not well studied.
METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE and relevant databases for studies comparing IV with IC adenosine administration for FFR measurement. We reviewed data pertaining to adenosine doses, side effects, and FFR values.
RESULTS: Eight studies addressing the primary question were identified. Dose of IC adenosine varied between 36 and 600 μg. Compared to IV adenosine infusion, the sensitivity of IC administration is 0.805 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.664-0.896; p < .001), specificity is 0.965 (95% CI: 0.932-0.983; p < .001), positive likelihood ratio is 24.218 (95% CI: 12,263-47.830; p < .001), negative likelihood ratio is 0.117 (95% CI: 0.033-0.411; p < .01), and diagnostic odds ratio is 274.225 [95% CI: 92.731-810.946; p < .001]. Overall, hemodynamic side effects and symptoms were reported more frequently with IV adenosine.
CONCLUSIONS: The available literature suggests that IC adenosine is well tolerated and may provide equivalent diagnostic accuracy compared to IV administration. However, variability in dosing regimens does not allow definitive conclusions regarding noninferiority of IC approach compared to IV administration.