Intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine to assess fractional flow reserve: A systematic review and meta-analysis

S. Gili, U. Barbero, D. Errigo, G. De Luca, G. Biondi-Zoccai, A.M. Leone, M. Iannaccone, A. Montefusco, P. Omedé, C. Moretti, M. D'Amico, F. Gaita, F. D'Ascenzo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Aims Intravenous infusion of adenosine is the reference method to measure fractional flow reserve (FFR). Intracoronary boluses are often used because of time and convenience, but their effectiveness has yet to be assessed. Methods We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of prospective studies directly comparing intravenous and intracoronary adenosine administration for FFR measurement. FFR values and prevalence of functionally critical lesions obtained with the different methods of adenosine administration were compared. Results Twelve studies evaluating 781 lesions from 731 patients were included (63.7 years, 25.5% women, median FFR 0.82). FFR values were significantly lower with intravenous adenosine than with intracoronary adenosine [mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00- 0.02, P=0.005], even if no significant differences were observed when only high doses of intracoronary adenosine (≥ 150μg) were considered. The prevalence of functionally critical lesions did not significantly differ between intracoronary and intravenous adenosine. Concerning the use of different doses of intracoronary adenosine, low doses (≤ 60μg) were associated with higher FFR values (mean difference 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.03, P
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)274-283
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Cardiovascular Medicine
Volume19
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

Adenosine
Meta-Analysis
Confidence Intervals
Intravenous Infusions
Prospective Studies

Keywords

  • adenosine
  • vasodilator agent, angina pectoris
  • atrioventricular block
  • bolus injection
  • coronary artery disease
  • diagnostic accuracy
  • dose response
  • drug dose comparison
  • drug megadose
  • drug safety
  • fractional flow reserve
  • human
  • intracoronary drug administration
  • low drug dose
  • meta analysis
  • Review
  • systematic review
  • systemic disease
  • thorax pain
  • coronary blood vessel
  • drug effect
  • hemodynamics
  • intravenous drug administration, Adenosine
  • Administration, Intravenous
  • Coronary Vessels
  • Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial
  • Hemodynamics
  • Humans
  • Vasodilator Agents

Cite this

Intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine to assess fractional flow reserve: A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Gili, S.; Barbero, U.; Errigo, D.; De Luca, G.; Biondi-Zoccai, G.; Leone, A.M.; Iannaccone, M.; Montefusco, A.; Omedé, P.; Moretti, C.; D'Amico, M.; Gaita, F.; D'Ascenzo, F.

In: Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2018, p. 274-283.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gili, S, Barbero, U, Errigo, D, De Luca, G, Biondi-Zoccai, G, Leone, AM, Iannaccone, M, Montefusco, A, Omedé, P, Moretti, C, D'Amico, M, Gaita, F & D'Ascenzo, F 2018, 'Intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine to assess fractional flow reserve: A systematic review and meta-analysis', Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 274-283. https://doi.org/10.2459/JCM.0000000000000652
Gili, S. ; Barbero, U. ; Errigo, D. ; De Luca, G. ; Biondi-Zoccai, G. ; Leone, A.M. ; Iannaccone, M. ; Montefusco, A. ; Omedé, P. ; Moretti, C. ; D'Amico, M. ; Gaita, F. ; D'Ascenzo, F. / Intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine to assess fractional flow reserve: A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine. 2018 ; Vol. 19, No. 6. pp. 274-283.
@article{71f7b5afae8f477eb360f0d886e18ba9,
title = "Intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine to assess fractional flow reserve: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Aims Intravenous infusion of adenosine is the reference method to measure fractional flow reserve (FFR). Intracoronary boluses are often used because of time and convenience, but their effectiveness has yet to be assessed. Methods We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of prospective studies directly comparing intravenous and intracoronary adenosine administration for FFR measurement. FFR values and prevalence of functionally critical lesions obtained with the different methods of adenosine administration were compared. Results Twelve studies evaluating 781 lesions from 731 patients were included (63.7 years, 25.5{\%} women, median FFR 0.82). FFR values were significantly lower with intravenous adenosine than with intracoronary adenosine [mean difference 0.01, 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) 0.00- 0.02, P=0.005], even if no significant differences were observed when only high doses of intracoronary adenosine (≥ 150μg) were considered. The prevalence of functionally critical lesions did not significantly differ between intracoronary and intravenous adenosine. Concerning the use of different doses of intracoronary adenosine, low doses (≤ 60μg) were associated with higher FFR values (mean difference 0.02, 95{\%} CI 0.01-0.03, P",
keywords = "adenosine, vasodilator agent, angina pectoris, atrioventricular block, bolus injection, coronary artery disease, diagnostic accuracy, dose response, drug dose comparison, drug megadose, drug safety, fractional flow reserve, human, intracoronary drug administration, low drug dose, meta analysis, Review, systematic review, systemic disease, thorax pain, coronary blood vessel, drug effect, hemodynamics, intravenous drug administration, Adenosine, Administration, Intravenous, Coronary Vessels, Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial, Hemodynamics, Humans, Vasodilator Agents",
author = "S. Gili and U. Barbero and D. Errigo and {De Luca}, G. and G. Biondi-Zoccai and A.M. Leone and M. Iannaccone and A. Montefusco and P. Omed{\'e} and C. Moretti and M. D'Amico and F. Gaita and F. D'Ascenzo",
note = "cited By 0",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.2459/JCM.0000000000000652",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "274--283",
journal = "Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine",
issn = "1558-2027",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine to assess fractional flow reserve: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Gili, S.

AU - Barbero, U.

AU - Errigo, D.

AU - De Luca, G.

AU - Biondi-Zoccai, G.

AU - Leone, A.M.

AU - Iannaccone, M.

AU - Montefusco, A.

AU - Omedé, P.

AU - Moretti, C.

AU - D'Amico, M.

AU - Gaita, F.

AU - D'Ascenzo, F.

N1 - cited By 0

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Aims Intravenous infusion of adenosine is the reference method to measure fractional flow reserve (FFR). Intracoronary boluses are often used because of time and convenience, but their effectiveness has yet to be assessed. Methods We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of prospective studies directly comparing intravenous and intracoronary adenosine administration for FFR measurement. FFR values and prevalence of functionally critical lesions obtained with the different methods of adenosine administration were compared. Results Twelve studies evaluating 781 lesions from 731 patients were included (63.7 years, 25.5% women, median FFR 0.82). FFR values were significantly lower with intravenous adenosine than with intracoronary adenosine [mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00- 0.02, P=0.005], even if no significant differences were observed when only high doses of intracoronary adenosine (≥ 150μg) were considered. The prevalence of functionally critical lesions did not significantly differ between intracoronary and intravenous adenosine. Concerning the use of different doses of intracoronary adenosine, low doses (≤ 60μg) were associated with higher FFR values (mean difference 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.03, P

AB - Aims Intravenous infusion of adenosine is the reference method to measure fractional flow reserve (FFR). Intracoronary boluses are often used because of time and convenience, but their effectiveness has yet to be assessed. Methods We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of prospective studies directly comparing intravenous and intracoronary adenosine administration for FFR measurement. FFR values and prevalence of functionally critical lesions obtained with the different methods of adenosine administration were compared. Results Twelve studies evaluating 781 lesions from 731 patients were included (63.7 years, 25.5% women, median FFR 0.82). FFR values were significantly lower with intravenous adenosine than with intracoronary adenosine [mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00- 0.02, P=0.005], even if no significant differences were observed when only high doses of intracoronary adenosine (≥ 150μg) were considered. The prevalence of functionally critical lesions did not significantly differ between intracoronary and intravenous adenosine. Concerning the use of different doses of intracoronary adenosine, low doses (≤ 60μg) were associated with higher FFR values (mean difference 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.03, P

KW - adenosine

KW - vasodilator agent, angina pectoris

KW - atrioventricular block

KW - bolus injection

KW - coronary artery disease

KW - diagnostic accuracy

KW - dose response

KW - drug dose comparison

KW - drug megadose

KW - drug safety

KW - fractional flow reserve

KW - human

KW - intracoronary drug administration

KW - low drug dose

KW - meta analysis

KW - Review

KW - systematic review

KW - systemic disease

KW - thorax pain

KW - coronary blood vessel

KW - drug effect

KW - hemodynamics

KW - intravenous drug administration, Adenosine

KW - Administration, Intravenous

KW - Coronary Vessels

KW - Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial

KW - Hemodynamics

KW - Humans

KW - Vasodilator Agents

U2 - 10.2459/JCM.0000000000000652

DO - 10.2459/JCM.0000000000000652

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 274

EP - 283

JO - Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine

JF - Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine

SN - 1558-2027

IS - 6

ER -