Temporal dissociation between the minimal distal-to-aortic pressure ratio and peak hyperemia during intravenous adenosine infusion

The clinical application of microincision vein harvesting of the great saphenous vein in coronary artery bypass grafting

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to summarize the clinical application of microincision vein harvesting (MVH) of the great saphenous vein in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

From July 2014 to October 2017, 160 patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting. Among them, 80 patients received MVH of the great saphenous vein, and 80 received open venous harvesting (OVH). The results of the sampling operation, complications during hospitalization, and the long-term patency of the great saphenous vein were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

All the patients in both groups received successful operations. The difference in the length of the veins obtained and the injury of the veins was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The difference in the long-term patency rate of the graft vessels between the two groups was not statistically significant. The in-hospital mortality rate was the same in both groups. The MVH group had noticeable advantages over the OVH group in terms of the vein collection times, the incision length, and the complications experienced when performing the leg incisions (P < 0.01). The time relating to the patients' observed early out-of-bed activity was significantly longer in the MVH group. Furthermore, the patients' hospitalization length was significantly shorter in the MVH group compared to the OVH group (P < 0.05). The MVH group had significant advantages in pain score and patient satisfaction, and this difference was also statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The MVH procedure met the requirements of CABG in vein grafting. When compared with OVH, MVH can significantly reduce leg incision complications and improve patients' overall satisfaction with their hospital experience.

Individual Lesion-Level Meta-Analysis Comparing Various Doses of Intracoronary Bolus Injection of Adenosine With Intravenous Administration of Adenosine for Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment

BACKGROUND

Intravenous infusion of adenosine is considered standard practice for fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment but is associated with adverse side-effects and is time-consuming. Intracoronary bolus injection of adenosine is better tolerated by patients, cheaper, and less time-consuming. However, current literature remains fragmented and modestly sized regarding the equivalence of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine. We aim to investigate the relationship between intracoronary adenosine and intravenous adenosine to determine FFR.

METHODS

We performed a lesion-level meta-analysis to compare intracoronary adenosine with intravenous adenosine (140 µg/kg per minute) for FFR assessment. The search was conducted in accordance to the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. Lesion-level data were obtained by contacting the respective authors or by digitization of scatterplots using custom-made software. Intracoronary adenosine dose was defined as; low: <40 µg, intermediate: 40 to 99 µg, and high: ≥100 µg.

RESULTS

We collected 1972 FFR measurements (1413 lesions) comparing intracoronary with intravenous adenosine from 16 studies. There was a strong correlation (correlation coefficient =0.915; P<0.001) between intracoronary-FFR and intravenous-FFR. Mean FFR was 0.81±0.11 for intracoronary adenosine and 0.81±0.11 for intravenous adenosine (P<0.001). We documented a nonclinically relevant mean difference of 0.006 (limits of agreement: -0.066 to 0.078) between the methods. When stratified by the intracoronary adenosine dose, mean differences between intracoronary and intravenous-FFR amounted to 0.004, 0.011, or 0.000 FFR units for low-dose, intermediate-dose, and high-dose intracoronary adenosine, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study documents clinically irrelevant differences in FFR values obtained with intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine. Intracoronary adenosine hence confers a practical and patient-friendly alternative for intravenous adenosine for FFR assessment.

Discordance between pressure drift after wire pullback and intracoronary distal pressure offset affects stenosis physiology appraisal

BACKGROUND

Drift is a well-known issue affecting intracoronary pressure measurements. A small pressure offset at the end of the procedure is generally considered acceptable, while repeat assessment is advised for drift exceeding ±2 mmHg. This practice implies that drift assessed after wire pullback equals that at the time of stenosis appraisal, but this assumption has not been systematically investigated. Our aim was to compare intra-and post-procedural pressure sensor drift and assess benefits of correction for intra-procedural drift and its effect on diagnostic classification.

METHODS

In 70 patients we compared intra- and post-procedural pressure drift for 120 hemodynamic tracings obtained at baseline and throughout the hyperemic response to intracoronary adenosine. Intra-procedural drift was derived from the intercept of the stenosis pressure gradient-velocity relationship. Diagnostic reclassification after correction for intra-procedural drift was assessed for the mean distal-to-aortic pressure ratio at baseline (Pd/Pa) and hyperemia (fractional flow reserve, FFR), and corresponding stenosis resistances.

RESULTS

Post- and intra-procedural drift exceeding the tolerated threshold was observed in 73% and 64% of the hemodynamic tracings, respectively. Discordance in terms of acceptable drift level was present for 42% of the tracings, with avoidable repeat physiological assessment in 25% and unacceptable intra-procedural drift unrecognized at final drift check in 17% of the tracings. Correction for intra-procedural drift caused higher reclassification rates for baseline than hyperemic functional indices.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-procedural pressure drift frequently does not match drift during physiological assessment. Tracing-specific correction for intra-procedural drift can potentially lower the risk of inadvertent diagnostic misclassification and prevent unnecessary repeats.

Statistical considerations in reporting cardiovascular research

The problem of inadequate statistical reporting is long standing and widespread in the biomedical literature, including in cardiovascular physiology. Although guidelines for reporting statistics have been available in clinical medicine for some time, there are currently no guidelines specific to cardiovascular physiology. To assess the need for guidelines, we determined the type and frequency of statistical tests and procedures currently used in the American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology. A PubMed search for articles published in the American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology between January 1, 2017, and October 6, 2017, provided a final sample of 146 articles evaluated for methods used and 38 articles for indepth analysis. The t-test and ANOVA accounted for 71% (212 of 300 articles) of the statistical tests performed. Of six categories of post hoc tests, Bonferroni and Tukey tests were used in 63% (62 of 98 articles). There was an overall lack in details provided by authors publishing in the American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, and we compiled a list of recommended minimum reporting guidelines to aid authors in preparing manuscripts. Following these guidelines could substantially improve the quality of statistical reports and enhance data rigor and reproducibility.