Comparison of standard- and high-dose intracoronary adenosine for the measurement of coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR)

Comparison of Resting Full-Cycle Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve in a German Real-World Cohort

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate non-hyperemic resting pressure ratios (NHPRs), especially the novel “resting full-cycle ratio” (RFR; lowest pressure distal to the stenosis/aortic pressure during the entire cardiac cycle), compared to the gold standard fractional flow reserve (FFR) in a “real-world” setting.

Methods: The study included patients undergoing coronary pressure wire studies at one German University Hospital. No patients were excluded based on any baseline or procedural characteristics, except for insufficient quality of traces. The diagnostic performance of four NHPRs vs. FFR ≤ 0.80 was tested. Morphological characteristics of stenoses were analyzed by quantitative coronary angiography.

Results: 617 patients with 712 coronary lesions were included. RFR showed a significant correlation with FFR (r = 0.766, p < 0.01). Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of RFR were 78% (95% confidence interval = 75; 81), 72% (65; 78), 81% (77; 84), 63% (57; 69), and 86% (83; 89). Relevant predictors for discordance of RFR ≤ 0.89/FFR > 0.8 were LAD lesions, peripheral artery disease, age, female sex and non-focal stenoses. Predictors for discordance of RFR > 0.89/FFR ≤ 0.8 included non-LCX lesions, percent diameter stenosis and previous percutaneous coronary intervention in the target vessel. RFR and all other NHPRs were highly correlated with each other.

Conclusion: All NHPRs have a similar correlation with the gold standard FFR and may facilitate the acceptance and implementation of physiological assessments of lesion severity. However, we found ~20% discordant results between NHPRs and FFR in our “all-comers” German cohort.

A comparison of standard and high dose adenosine protocols in routine vasodilator stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance: dosage affects hyperaemic myocardial blood flow in patients with severe left ventricular systolic impairment

BACKGROUND

Adenosine stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is commonly used in the assessment of patients with suspected ischaemia. Accepted protocols recommend administration of adenosine at a dose of 140 µg/kg/min increased up to 210 µg/kg/min if required. Conventionally, adequate stress has been assessed using change in heart rate, however, recent studies have suggested that these peripheral measurements may not reflect hyperaemia and can be blunted, in particular, in patients with heart failure. This study looked to compare stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and haemodynamic response with different dosing regimens of adenosine during stress perfusion CMR in patients and healthy controls.

METHODS

20 healthy adult subjects were recruited as controls to compare 3 adenosine perfusion protocols: standard dose (140 µg/kg/min for 4 min), high dose (210 µg/kg/min for 4 min) and long dose (140 µg/kg/min for 8 min). 60 patients with either known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) or with heart failure and different degrees of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction underwent adenosine stress with standard and high dose adenosine within the same scan. All studies were carried out on a 3 T CMR scanner. Quantitative global myocardial perfusion and haemodynamic response were compared between doses.

RESULTS

In healthy controls, no significant difference was seen in stress MBF between the 3 protocols. In patients with known or suspected CAD, and those with heart failure and mild systolic impairment (LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 40%) no significant difference was seen in stress MBF between standard and high dose adenosine. In those with LVEF < 40%, there was a significantly higher stress MBF following high dose adenosine compared to standard dose (1.33 ± 0.46 vs 1.10 ± 0.47 ml/g/min, p = 0.004). Non-responders to standard dose adenosine (defined by an increase in heart rate (HR) < 10 bpm) had a significantly higher stress HR following high dose (75 ± 12 vs 70 ± 14 bpm, p = 0.034), but showed no significant difference in stress MBF.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing adenosine dose from 140 to 210 µg/kg/min leads to increased stress MBF in patients with significantly impaired LV systolic function. Adenosine dose in clinical perfusion assessment may need to be increased in these patients.

Impact of Age on the Functional Evaluation of Intermediate Coronary Stenoses With Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve

The optimal strategy for assessing the ischemic significance of intermediate coronary stenoses with adenosine-induced fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is still debated. Few studies have previously assessed the impact of age on FFR and iFR, which was the aim of our study. Patients undergoing FFR and iFR evaluation for intermediate (40%-70%) coronary lesions were included and divided according to age. Fractional flow reserve was performed by intracoronary boluses of adenosine (60-1440 μg). Instantaneous wave-free ratio was automatically calculated. Among 148 patients undergoing FFR measurement of 166 lesions, 45.3% were ≥70 years. Elderly patients had higher minimal lumen diameter (P = .03). We also observed a linear relationship between iFR and FFR independently of age. Fractional flow reserve values were higher in the elderly patients, whereas iFR was not related to age. A total of 33 lesions had a positive iFR with no difference for age (17.3% vs 22%, P = .56), while FFR <0.80 was more infrequent in the elderly patients (17.1% vs 34.8%, P = .02). In intermediate coronary stenoses, iFR and FFR correlation is unaffected by age. Fractional flow reserve is higher in the elderly patients, whereas iFR is less affected by age. Future large-scale studies are needed to define whether iFR should be the preferred choice in elderly patients.

Relationship between adenosine A2a receptor polymorphism rs5751876 and fractional flow reserve during percutaneous coronary intervention

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessed during adenosine-induced maximal hyperemia has emerged as a useful tool for the guidance of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). However, interindividual variability in the response to adenosine has been claimed as a major limitation to the use of adenosine for the measurement of FFR, carrying the risk of underestimating the severity of coronary stenoses, with potential negative prognostic consequences. Genetic variants of the adenosine receptor A2a (ADORA2A gene), located in the coronary circulation, have been involved in the modulation of the hyperemic response to adenosine. However, no study has so far evaluated the impact of the single nucleotide polymorphism rs5751876 of ADORA2A on the measurement of FFR in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention that was, therefore, the aim of our study. We included patients undergoing coronary angiography and FFR assessment for intermediate (40-70%) coronary lesions. FFR measurement was performed by pressure-recording guidewire (Prime Wire, Volcano), after induction of hyperemia with intracoronary boli of adenosine (from 60 to 1440 μg, with dose doubling at each step). Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis was performed to assess the presence of rs5751876 C>T polymorphism of ADORA2a receptor. We included 204 patients undergoing FFR measurement of 231 coronary lesions. A total of 134 patients carried the polymorphism (T allele), of whom 41 (30.6%) in homozygosis (T/T).Main clinical and angiographic features did not differ according to ADORA2A genotype. The rs5751876 C>T polymorphism did not affect mean FFR values (p = 0.91), the percentage of positive FFR (p = 0.54) and the duration of maximal hyperemia. However, the time to recovery to baseline FFR values was more prolonged among the T-allele carriers as compared to wild-type patients (p = 0.04). Based on these results, in patients with intermediate coronary stenoses undergoing FFR assessment with adenosine, the polymorphism rs5751876 of ADORA2A does not affect the peak hyperemic response to adenosine and the results of FFR. However, a more prolonged effect of adenosine was observed in T-carriers.

How to guide PCI?: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Traditional coronary angiography (CA) as a main technique has been used to determine the coronary artery anatomy and guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We mainly focused on whether the new techniques could improve the patients' mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and myocardial infarction.

METHODS

For the network meta-analysis, we searched the trials of different PCI guidances from MEDLINE, Current Contents Connect, Google Scholar, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Science Direct, and Web of Science. The last search date was December 10, 2018.

RESULTS

The analyses of all results found that there was no significant difference in mortality among the groups. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) analysis showed that intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI was significantly superior to CA, fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, optical coherence tomography. However, CA, fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, and optical coherence tomography showed no difference in reducing mortality. The analyses of all results found that there was no significant difference in the incidence of MACEs among the groups. RCTs analysis showed that IVUS-guided PCI was significantly superior to CA, but there was no significant difference among the other groups. The analyses of all results or RCTs showed that there was no significant difference in myocardial infarction incidence among the groups.

CONCLUSION

IVUS-guided PCI is an effective method to decrease all-cause death MACEs.

Comparison of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine-induced maximal hyperemia for fractional flow reserve measurement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

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

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 meta-analysis 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 (≥150 μg) 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 (≤60 μg) were associated with higher FFR values (mean difference 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.03, P < 0.001) and fewer functionally critical lesions (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40-0.81, P = 0.002) compared with high doses. Meta-regression analysis did not show any significant interaction between the way of adenosine administration and main clinical features. Intracoronary adenosine was associated with a higher incidence of atrioventricular blocks, whereas angina and/or systemic symptoms were more frequent with intravenous adenosine.

CONCLUSION

Intracoronary adenosine might be as effective as intravenous adenosine to measure FFR, provided that adequate doses are used. Intracoronary adenosine represents a valuable alternative to intravenous adenosine whenever appropriately administered.

Impact of increasing dose of intracoronary adenosine on peak hyperemia duration during fractional flow reserve assessment

BACKGROUND

Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) is currently indicated as a first line strategy for the functional assessment of intermediate coronary stenoses. However, the protocol for inducing hyperemia still lacks standardization. Intracoronary adenosine boli, with a progressive increase to high-dosage, have been proposed as a sensitive and accurate strategy for the classification of coronary stenoses, although being potentially affected by the achievement of plateau of the effect and by a less prolonged and stable hyperemia as compared to intravenous administration. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to define the conditioning parameters and assess the impact of increasing-dose intracoronary adenosine on peak hyperemia duration in patients undergoing FFR for intermediate coronary stenoses.

METHODS

FFR was assessed in patients with intermediate (40 to 70%) lesions by pressure-recording guidewire (Prime Wire, Volcano), after induction of hyperemia with intracoronary boli of adenosine (from 60 to 1440 μg, with dose doubling at each step). Hyperemic duration was defined as the time for the variation form minimum FFR ± 0.02 and time to recovery till baseline values.

RESULTS

We included 87 patients, undergoing FFR evaluation of 101 lesions. Mean peak hyperemia duration and time to recovery significantly increased with adenosine doses escalation (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001). Peak hyperemia duration and time to recovery with 1440 μg adenosine were 14.5 ± 12.6 s and 45.2 ± 30.7 s, respectively. Hyperemia duration was not related to Quantitative Coronary Angiography (QCA) parameters or FFR values. In fact, a similar increase in the time of hyperemic peak was noted when comparing patients with positive or negative FFR (p_between = 0.87) or patients with lesions < or ≥20 mm (p_between = 0.92) and lesions involving left main coronary or proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) (p_between = 0.07). A linear relationship was observed between time to recovery and FFR variations, with a greater time to baseline required in patients with FFR ≤ 0.80 (p = 0.003) and in lesions ≥ 20 mm (p = 0.006), but not in LAD/LM lesions (p = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows a progressive raise in the duration of peak hyperemia and time to recovery, after the administration of increasing doses of intracoronary adenosine for the assessment of FFR. Therefore, considering the potential advantages of a high-dose adenosine protocol, allowing a more prolonged hyperemia and a more precise and reliable measurement of FFR, further larger studies with such FFR strategy should certainly be advocated to confirm its safety and benefits, before its routinely use recommendation.

Network meta-analysis comparing iFR versus FFR versus coronary angiography to drive coronary revascularization

AIMS

Instantaneous free-wave ratio (iFR) has been recently demonstrated non-inferior to fractional flow reserve (FFR) to drive coronary revascularization; however, no study has compared iFR versus coronary angiography (CA). We performed a network meta-analysis to evaluate efficacy and safety of iFR- versus CA-guided strategy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched for randomized trials and studies with propensity score matching in The Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE/Pubmed. CA, FFR, and iFR were the three competitive arms, MACE (a composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction [MI], and target vessel revascularization [TVR]) was the primary endpoint, while its single components the secondary ones. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients presenting with stable coronary artery disease. Eight studies were selected: 4126 patients were evaluated with FFR, 2160 with iFR, and 2214 with CA, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was the most frequent admission diagnosis. After 12 months, rates of MACE and all-cause death did not differ between groups (respectively OR 1.04 and OR 0.86 for iFR vs FFR). Both FFR and iFR reduced TVR compared to CA (respectively OR 0.68 and OR 0.70). In patients with stable CAD both FFR and iFR reduced risk of subsequent MI compared to CA (respectively OR 0.66 and OR 0.79).

CONCLUSION

Compared to CA alone, both FFR and iFR are safe and effective in guiding coronary revascularization at 12 months. In patients with stable CAD, both FFR and iFR-guided revascularization reduce the risk of subsequent MI at 12 months.

Long-term effects of device-guided slow breathing in stable heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction

Background

Slow breathing (SLOWB) alleviates symptoms of chronic heart failure (HF) but its long-term effects are unknown. We examined the acute and long-term impact of device-guided breathing on hemodynamics and prognostic parameters in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Methods and results

Twenty-one patients with HFrEF (23.9 ± 5.8%, SD ± mean) on optimal medical therapy underwent blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), HR variability, 6-min walk test (6MWT), cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), and echocardiography measurements before and 3 months after SLOWB home training (30 min daily). After 3 months, all patients were assigned to continue SLOWB (Group 1) or no-SLOWB (Group 2). All tests were repeated after 6 months. Acute SLOWB (18 ± 5 vs 8 ± 2 breaths/min, P < 0.001) had no influence on BP and HR but improved saturation (97 ± 2 vs 98 ± 2%, P = 0.01). Long-term SLOWB reduced office systolic BP (P < 0.001) but not central or ambulatory systolic BP. SLOWB reduced SDNN/RMSSD ratio (P < 0.05) after 3 months. One-way repeated measures of ANOVA revealed a significant increase in 6MWT and peak RER (respiratory exchange ratio) from baseline to 6-month follow-up in group 1 (P < 0.05) but not group 2 (P = 0.85 for 6MWT, P = 0.69 for RER). No significant changes in echocardiography were noted at follow-up. No HF worsening, rehospitalisation or death occurred in group 1 out to 6-month follow-up. Two hospitalizations for HF decompensation and two deaths ensued in group 2 between 3- and 6-month follow-up.

Conclusions

SLOWB training improves cardiorespiratory capacity and appears to slow the progression of HFrEF. Further long-term outcome studies are required to confirm the benefits of paced breathing in HFrEF.

Meta-Analysis of Head-to-Head Comparison of Intracoronary Versus Intravenous Adenosine for the Assessment of Fractional Flow Reserve

Intravenous (IV) infusion of adenosine represents the gold standard for measuring fractional flow reserve (FFR). However, IV adenosine is more expensive and time-consuming compared with intracoronary (IC) boluses of adenosine. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies comparing IC with IV adenosine for FFR assessment in the same coronary lesions. We searched for studies comparing IC with IV adenosine and reporting absolute FFR values or rate of abnormal FFR for both routes. Prespecified subgroup analysis was performed to appraise studies using low-dose (<100 μg) or high-dose IC adenosine (≥100 μg). We retrieved 11 studies amounting to 587 patients and 621 lesions. Six studies evaluated low-dose IC boluses (15 to 80 μg) and 5 studies high-dose boluses (120 to 600 μg). Absolute FFR values were slightly, yet significantly lower with IV adenosine compared with IC adenosine (mean difference 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00 to 0.03, p = 0.02). This difference, however, did not translate into a significant difference in the rate of abnormal FFR between IC and IV adenosine (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.13, p = 0.57); moreover, no statistically significant difference was observed between low-dose and high-dose IC adenosine subgroups. Adverse events were less frequent with IC adenosine compared with IV adenosine (risk ratio 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.43, p <0.001). In conclusion, IC administration of adenosine, although inducing a slightly lower amount of hyperemia compared with IV infusion of adenosine, yields a similar diagnostic accuracy in identifying hemodynamically significant coronary stenosis and is better tolerated by the patients.

The assessment of ischaemic burden: validation of a functional jeopardy score against cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging

AIMS

This study assesses the relationship between classical anatomical jeopardy scores, functional jeopardy scores (combined anatomical and haemodynamic data), and the extent of ischaemia identified on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion imaging.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 42 patients with stable angina and suspected coronary artery disease (CAD), CMR perfusion imaging was performed. Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) was measured in vessels with ≥50 % stenosis. The APPROACH and BCIS jeopardy scores were calculated based on QCA results with both a 70 % (APP₇₀ and BCIS₇₀) and a 50 % stenosis (APP₅₀, and BCIS₅₀) used as the threshold for significance, as well as after integration of FFR and compared with the extent of ischaemia identified on CMR. The correlation between the extent of ischaemia measured by CMR and the anatomical jeopardy scores was moderate (APPROACH: r = 0.58; BCIS: r = 0.48, p = 0.001). Integrating physiological information improved this significantly to r = 0.82, p = 0.0001 for APPROACH and r = 0.82, p = 0.0001 for BCIS scores (z-statistic = -2.04, p = 0.04; z-statistic = -2.63, p = 0.009). In relation to CMR, the APPROACH and BCIS scores overestimated the volume of ischaemic myocardium by 29.2 and 25.2 %, respectively, which was reduced to 12.8 and 12 % after integrating functional data.

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomical and functional jeopardy scores overestimate ischaemic burden when compared to CMR. Integrating physiological information from FFR to generate a functional score improves ischaemic burden estimation.