Cargando…

Efficacy of coronary fractional flow reserve using contrast medium compared to adenosine

INTRODUCTION: Coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) is recommended as the gold standard method in evaluating intermediate coronary stenoses. However, there are significant debates concerning the agents and the timing of the measurement. AIM: To compare the contrast medium induced Pd/Pa ratio (CMR)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Topcu, Selim, Tanboğa, Ibrahim Halil, Aksakal, Enbiya, Aksu, Uğur, Gulcu, Oktay, Birdal, Oğuzhan, Arısoy, Arif, Kalaycı, Arzu, Ulusoy, Fatih Rifat, Sevimli, Serdar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5011536/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27625683
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aic.2016.61641
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) is recommended as the gold standard method in evaluating intermediate coronary stenoses. However, there are significant debates concerning the agents and the timing of the measurement. AIM: To compare the contrast medium induced Pd/Pa ratio (CMR) with the FFR. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We enrolled 28 consecutive patients with 34 intermediate lesions who underwent coronary FFR measurement by intracoronary (i.c.) adenosine. After baseline Pd/Pa was calculated, a single contrast medium (Iomeron) injection of 6 ml (3 ml/s) was performed manually. Within 10 s after the contrast medium injection, the CMR was calculated. Bolus injection of i.c. adenosine was performed to induce maximal hyperemia (from 60 µg to 600 µg), and when it was ≤ 0.80, the intermediate lesion was considered as significant. RESULTS: After bolus i.c. adenosine, 12 lesions of 34 (35.3%) were identified as significant. The CMR value was 0.86 ±0.06 (range: 0.71–0.97). There were no significant differences between FFR and CMR values (p = 0.108). A substantial positive correlation between adenosine and contrast values was detected (0.886 and p < 0.001). Good agreement in Bland-Altman analysis was revealed (mean bias was 0.027, 95% confidence interval 0.038–0.092). Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis showed 90.9% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity for a cut-off value of 0.85 for the CMR compared to FFR (≤ 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that measuring the CMR is a feasible method compared to FFR. The CMR may be used in situations where adenosine cannot be administered.