CSANZ Logo
CSANZ Logo
Welcome to the official website of the


CSANZ Logo
CSANZ Logo
Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand
CSANZ Logo


CSANZ Logo


CSANZ Logo

contact
links
want to join?
register
search the CSANZ website
search the CSANZ website
     







search the CSANZ website













CSANZ Directory

CSANZ Member Directory

CSANZ Guidelines

Practice Guidelines

Training and Competence

Meetings

What's On and Where

ASM Abstracts Online

News and Views

Newsletter - On the Pulse

Newsletter - CNWG

In the News

Affiliate News
Career Opportunities

Affiliate Member Area

Affiliate Calendar

Affiliate Discussion

Scholarships/ Fellowships

Working Groups


ASM Abstracts

DIFFERENCES IN ADENOSINE INDUCIBLE MAXIMAL CORONARY HYPERAEMIA FOR FRACTIONAL FLOW RESERVE MEASUREMENTS.

R.J. Whitbourn*, A. Jeremias, S.D. Filardo, P.J. Fitzgerald, A.C. Yeung, P.G. Yock.

Departments of Cardiology, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne* and Stanford University, USA.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been shown to reliably indicate coronary stenosis severity and requires intracoronary pressure measurements to be obtained at maximal hyperaemia.  The most widely used approached to induce maximal coronary hyperaemia employ adenosine, administered either as a  continuous intravenous (I.V.) infusion or intracoronary (I.C.) bolus.

Objectives:  We set out to compare the efficacy of I.V. to I.C. adenosine administration for the measurement of the pressure-derived FFR. 

Methods:  In a multi-center trial, 52 patients with 60 lesions underwent determination of FFR using both I.V. and I.C. adenosine. I.V. adenosine was administered as a continuous infusion at a rate of 140mg/Kg/min to achieve steady state hyperaemia. I.C. adenosine boluses were administered 15-20mg in the right and 18-24mg in the left coronary artery.  FFR was calculated as the ratio of the distal coronary pressure to the aortic pressure at hyperaemia.

Results: A total of 60 stenoses were evaluated.  Mean percent stenosis for both groups was 55.8 ± 23.6% (range 0 - 95%) and mean FFR was 0.78 ± 0.15 (range 0.41 - 0.98).  There was a strong and linear correlation between FFR measurements with I.V. and I.C. adenosine (R=0.978, y=0.032 ± 0.965x, p<0.001). The agreement between the two sets of measurements was also high with a mean difference in FFR of -0.004 ± 0.03.  However, in 5 lesions (8.3%) FFR with I.C. adenosine was higher by 0.05 or more compared to I.V. infusions, suggesting a suboptimal hyperaemic response in these patients.  Changes in heart  rate and blood pressure were significantly higher with I.V. adenosine. Two patients with I.V. - but none with I.C. adenosine - had severe side effects (bronchospasm and severe nausea).

Conclusion:  The results suggest that I.C. adenosine is equivalent to I.V. infusion for the determination of FFR in >90% of patients.  When FFR, using I.C. adenosine, is within 0.05 of the accepted ischemic threshold (0,75), rechallenge of maximal hyperaemia should be performed with I.V. adenosine.

[ Back to 48th ASM Abstract Index ]


Med-E-Serv