Key result
Intracoronary papaverine yielded similar index of microvascular resistance values compared to intravenous adenosine (17.7 vs 20.1, p=0.25), with increased reproducibility and reduced procedural time.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to validate a simplified invasive method for calculating the index of microvascular resistance.
Does intracoronary papaverine provide comparable IMR measurements to intravenous adenosine in patients with chronic coronary syndromes and nonobstructive coronary artery disease?
Population
29 patients with chronic coronary syndromes and nonobstructive coronary artery disease
Comparison
Intracoronary papaverine vs intravenous adenosine for IMR measurement
Design
Prospective, single-center study
Authors
Loading...
May support faster IMR assessment in the cath lab; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Observational (n=29)
No
Does intracoronary papaverine provide comparable IMR measurements to intravenous adenosine in patients with chronic coronary syndromes and nonobstructive coronary artery disease?
Effect estimate: Passing-Bablok coefficient B 0.90 (95% CI -0.74 to 1.07)
Absolute Event Rate: 17.7% vs 20.1%
p-value: p=0.25
Intracoronary papaverine provides a reliable, reproducible, and faster alternative to intravenous adenosine for measuring the index of microvascular resistance in the catheterization laboratory.
Kodeboina et al. (2021) conducted an observational in chronic coronary syndromes with nonobstructive coronary artery disease (n=29). Intracoronary papaverine vs. Intravenous adenosine was evaluated on Agreement between IMR acquired using adenosine and papaverine (Passing-Bablok coefficient B 0.90, 95% CI -0.74 to 1.07, p=0.25). Intracoronary papaverine yielded similar index of microvascular resistance values compared to intravenous adenosine (17.7 vs 20.1, p=0.25), with increased reproducibility and reduced procedural time.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: