Ventricular Fibrillation Precipitated by Intracoronary Adenosine During Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment - A Cautionary Tale

Intra-procedural arrhythmia during cardiac catheterization: A systematic review of literature

BACKGROUND

Cardiac catheterization is among the most performed medical procedures in the modern era. There were sporadic reports indicating that cardiac arrhythmias are common during cardiac catheterization, and there are risks of developing serious and potentially life-threatening arrhythmias, such as sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF) and high-grade conduction disturbances such as complete heart block (CHB), requiring immediate interventions. However, there is lack of systematic overview of these conditions.

AIM

To systematically review existing literature and gain better understanding of the incidence of cardiac arrhythmias during cardiac catheterization, and their impact on outcomes, as well as potential approaches to minimize this risk.

METHODS

We applied a combination of terms potentially used in reports describing various cardiac arrhythmias during common cardiac catheterization procedures to systematically search PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, as well as references of full-length articles.

RESULTS

During right heart catheterization (RHC), the incidence of atrial arrhythmias (premature atrial complexes, atrial fibrillation and flutter) was low (< 1%); these arrhythmias were usually transient and self-limited. RHC associated with the development of a new RBBB at a rate of 0.1%-0.3% in individuals with normal conduction system but up to 6.3% in individuals with pre-existing left bundle branch block. These patients may require temporary pacing due to transient CHB. Isolated premature ventricular complexes or non-sustained VT are common during RHC (up to 20% of cases). Sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VT and/or VF) requiring either withdrawal of catheter or cardioversion occurred infrequently (1%-1.3%). During left heart catheterizations (LHC), the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias has declined significantly over the last few decades, from 1.1% historically to 0.1% currently. The overall reported rate of VT/VF in diagnostic LHC and coronary angiography is 0.8%. The risk of VT/VF was higher during percutaneous coronary interventions for stable coronary artery disease (1.1%) and even higher for patients with acute myocardial infarctions (4.1%-4.3%). Intravenous adenosine and papaverine bolus for fractional flow reserve measurement, as well as intracoronary imaging using optical coherence tomography have been reported to induce VF. Although uncommon, LHC and coronary angiography were also reported to induce conduction disturbances including CHB.

CONCLUSION

Cardiac arrhythmias are common and potentially serious complications of cardiac catheterization procedures, and it demands constant vigilance and readiness to intervene during procedures.

Unmasking Adenosine: The Purinergic Signalling Molecule Critical to Arrhythmia Pathophysiology and Management

Adenosine was identified in 1929 and immediately recognised as having a potential role in therapy for arrhythmia because of its negative chronotropic and dromotropic effects. Adenosine entered mainstream use in the 1980s as a highly effective agent for the termination of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) involving the atrioventricular node, as well as for its ability to unmask the underlying rhythm in other SVTs. Adenosine has subsequently been found to have applications in interventional electrophysiology. While considered a safe agent because of its short half-life, adenosine may provoke arrhythmias in the form of AF, bradyarrhythmia and ventricular tachyarrhythmia. Adenosine is also associated with bronchospasm, although this may reflect irritant-induced dyspnoea rather than true obstruction. Adenosine is linked to numerous pathologies relevant to arrhythmia predisposition, including heart failure, obesity, ischaemia and the ageing process itself. This article examines 90 years of experience with adenosine in the light of new European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of SVT.

Safety and efficacy of intracoronary sodium nitroprusside for the assessment of coronary fractional flow reserve

Background

Coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) determination is a valuable tool for the assessment of stenosis significance in intermediate coronary obstructions. Maximal hyperemia is mandatory for this determination. Although intravenous (IV) Adenosine is the standard agent used, its use carries an elevated incidence of side effects. Intracoronary sodium nitroprusside (IC NTP) is a very well-known coronary vasodilator, but it is not routinely used for FFR determinations.

Objectives

The purpose of the present study was to compare FFR determinations and side effect profile of IC NTP with IV Adenosine.

Methods

We prospectively assessed FFR determinations in a total of 20 intermediate coronary artery stenotic lesions in 18 consecutive patients with the administration of IV Adenosine (140 μg/kg/min) and IC NTP (100 μg). The appearance of side effects was registered.

Results

The mean age was 55.5 ± 7.5 years. Fifteen (83%) of the patients were male. Mean FFR values with IC NTP were similar to those obtained with IV Adenosine (0.82 ± 0.07 vs 0.82 ± 0.06, respectively, r = 0.775, p < 0.0001). Intravenous Adenosine induced side effects in 45% of patients (shortness of breath 30%, flushing 5%, headache 5%, angina pectoris 5%, and transient conduction disturbances 10%). No side effects were reported with IC NTP.

Conclusions

IC NTP at a dose of 100 μg is as effective as IV Adenosine for FFR assessment. Besides, it is better tolerated and should be consider as a vasodilator agent in the assessment of FFR.

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.

Intracoronary adenosine-induced ventricular arrhythmias during fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement: case series and literature review

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a standardized and well-established method frequently used in clinical practice to evaluate the hemodynamic significance of epicardial coronary stenosis identified by coronary angiography. It is based on the change in the pressure gradient across the stenosis after the achievement of maximal hyperemia of the coronary circulation which is commonly induced by intravenous (IV) or intracoronary (IC) administration of adenosine. Here, we have described three cases of IC adenosine-induced ventricular arrhythmias during FFR measurement from our institution, and after literature review we found that all the cases of ventricular arrhythmias induced by adenosine during FFR measurement were observed where it was administered via IC route. Although a causal relationship between the use of IC adenosine during FFR measurement and the induction of ventricular arrhythmias is not yet established, we suggest using IV adenosine as the preferred route of administration until we better understand the incidence and mechanism underlying this phenomenon.