Why the study?
Intracoronary adenosine is an alternative to intravenous adenosine for FFR, but predictors of requiring higher doses (150 and 200 mcg) to identify ischemic FFR were unknown.
What factors predict the requirement of higher intracoronary adenosine doses (150 and 200 mcg) to detect significant ischemic FFR?
What factors predict the requirement of higher intracoronary adenosine doses (150 and 200 mcg) to detect significant ischemic FFR?
Male sex, younger age, non-smoking status, and RCA assessment predict the need for higher intracoronary adenosine doses (150-200 mcg) during FFR measurement.
These predictors may guide higher-dose adenosine selection in FFR; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
Direct intracoronary adenosine bolus is an excellent alternative to intravenous adenosine fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement. This study, during four increasing adenosine boluses (50, 100, 150, and 200 mcg), aimed to explore clinical and angiographic predictors of coronary stenotic lesions for which the significant ischemic FFR (FFR ≤ 0.8) occurred at 150 and 200 mcg adenosine doses. Data from 1055 coronary lesions that underwent FFR measurement at the Central Chest Institute of Thailand from August 2011 to July 2021 were included. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were analyzed. The FFR ≤ 0.8 occurred at adenosine 150 and 200 mcg boluses in 47 coronary lesions, while the FFR ≤ 0.8 occurred at adenosine 50 and 100 mcg boluses in 186 coronary lesions. After univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses, four characteristics, including male sex, younger age, non-smoking status, and FFR procedure of RCA, were predictors of the occurrence of FFR ≤ 0.8 at adenosine 150 and 200 mcg doses. Combining all four predictors as a predictive model resulted in an AuROC of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.68-0.76), an 86% negative predictive value. Comparing these four predictors, the FFR procedure of RCA gave the most predictive power, with the AuROC of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.56-0.63).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chantadansuwan et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: