Expert review of cardiovascular therapy · 2018
Comparison of sodium nitroprusside and adenosine for fractional flow reserve assessment: 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.
Solernó Raúl, Pedroni Pablo, Mariani Javier, Sarmiento Ricardo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has become a useful tool in the assessment of physiological significance of coronary artery stenosis (CAS), and Adenosine (ADE) is associated with a high incidence of transient side effects. Sodium nitroprusside (NPS) has been proposed as an alternative vasodilator agent. A meta-analysis of studies comparing ADE and NPS for FFR assessment in the same coronary lesions was performed.
METHODS: Authors searched for articles comparing NPS and ADE for FFR assessment in intermediate coronary lesions published through January 2018. The following keywords were used: 'fractional flow reserve' AND 'nitroprusside'. Data were summarized using weighted mean differences for paired data.
RESULTS: Seven studies were identified comprising 342 patients and 401 lesions. Four studies evaluated intravenous ADE and 3 studies intracoronary ADE administration. Weighted means FFR values obtained with ADE and NPS were 0.8411 and 0.8445, respectively (weighted mean difference: 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.01, p = 0,548). Adverse events were significantly reduced with IC NPS (RR = 0.08, 95%CI 0.02-0.30, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: NPS produces similar FFR measurements compared to ADE with a significant reduction in adverse effects. These results may support its use as a suitable alternative to ADE for FFR assessment.
METHODS: Authors searched for articles comparing NPS and ADE for FFR assessment in intermediate coronary lesions published through January 2018. The following keywords were used: 'fractional flow reserve' AND 'nitroprusside'. Data were summarized using weighted mean differences for paired data.
RESULTS: Seven studies were identified comprising 342 patients and 401 lesions. Four studies evaluated intravenous ADE and 3 studies intracoronary ADE administration. Weighted means FFR values obtained with ADE and NPS were 0.8411 and 0.8445, respectively (weighted mean difference: 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.01, p = 0,548). Adverse events were significantly reduced with IC NPS (RR = 0.08, 95%CI 0.02-0.30, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: NPS produces similar FFR measurements compared to ADE with a significant reduction in adverse effects. These results may support its use as a suitable alternative to ADE for FFR assessment.