Key result
High-dose intracoronary adenosine downgraded low coronary flow reserve from 21% with intravenous adenosine to 10% (P=0.031) and shortened procedure time (P<0.0001).
Why the study?
Coronary microcirculatory assessment using intravenous adenosine and bolus thermodilution has low adoption, partly because of procedural time and patient discomfort.
Does intracoronary adenosine improve hyperemic induction and patient tolerability compared to intravenous adenosine in patients with suspected myocardial ischemia and nonobstructive coronary arteries?
Observational (n=102)
Does intracoronary adenosine improve hyperemic induction and patient tolerability compared to intravenous adenosine in patients with suspected myocardial ischemia and nonobstructive coronary arteries?
Absolute Event Rate: 10% vs 21%
p-value: p=0.031
High-dose intracoronary adenosine is a feasible, faster, and better-tolerated alternative to intravenous adenosine for assessing coronary microvascular dysfunction, yielding enhanced hyperemia.
May shorten procedural time and reduce discomfort in microcirculatory assessment; leaves open whether diagnostic yield improves in larger randomized studies.
Background Bolus thermodilution and intravenous adenosine are established methods for coronary microcirculatory assessment. Yet, its adoption remains low, partly due to procedural time and patient discomfort associated with intravenous adenosine. We investigated differences between intracoronary and intravenous adenosine using bolus thermodilution in terms of microcirculatory indices, procedural time, and side effects associated with adenosine in patients with myocardial ischemia and nonobstructive coronary arteries. Methods and Results In this prospective, observational study, 102 patients with suspected myocardial ischemia and nonobstructive coronary arteries underwent measurements of mean transit time, coronary flow reserve, index of microcirculatory resistance, procedure time and patient tolerability with low‐dose intracoronary adenosine, high‐dose intracoronary adenosine (HDIC), and intravenous adenosine. HDIC induced greater hyperemia compared with low‐dose intracoronary IC adenosine and intravenous adenosine with a shorter hyperemic mean transit time, P <0.0001. Coronary flow reserve was higher and index of microcirculatory resistance lowest with HDIC, compared with low‐dose intracoronary IC adenosine and intravenous adenosine, P <0.05. Low coronary flow reserve was downgraded from 21% with intravenous adenosine to 10% with HDIC adenosine ( P =0.031); high index of microcirculatory resistance was downgraded from 23% with intravenous adenosine to 14% with HDIC ( P =0.098). Intracoronary adenosine was associated with lower procedural times ( P <0.0001). More patients experienced chest pain with intravenous adenosine ( P <0.01) and the chest pain intensity was higher compared with intracoronary adenosine ( P <0.0001). Conclusions In patients with suspected myocardial ischemia and nonobstructive coronary arteries undergoing coronary microcirculatory assessment with bolus thermodilution, the use of HDIC compared with intravenous adenosine was associated with enhanced induction of hyperemia. The use of intracoronary adenosine allowed for a shorter procedure time and was better tolerated. Registration+ URL: clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique Identifier: NCT04827498.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mejía‐Rentería et al. (2024) conducted an observational in suspected myocardial ischemia and nonobstructive coronary arteries (n=102). High-dose intracoronary adenosine vs. intravenous adenosine was evaluated on low coronary flow reserve (p=0.031). High-dose intracoronary adenosine downgraded low coronary flow reserve from 21% with intravenous adenosine to 10% (P=0.031) and shortened procedure time (P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: