Comparison of fractional flow reserve measurements using intracoronary adenosine versus intracoronary sodium nitroprusside infusions in moderately stenotic coronary artery lesions

Comparison of sodium nitroprusside and adenosine for fractional flow reserve assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.