Adenosine-induced maximal coronary hyperemia for myocardial fractional flow reserve measurements: comparison of administration by femoral venous versus antecubital venous access.
BACKGROUND
Maximal hyperemia is a critical prerequisite for correct fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements. Continuous administration of adenosine by femoral venous access is considered the gold-standard. However, antecubital venous access is used as an alternative route of administration due to the increasing popularity of radial versus femoral access for coronary catheterization. Because of a potentially larger cross sectional venous area in the arm-theoretically associated with slower flow velocities-and the extremely short half-life of adenosine, there are concerns whether this route of administration is truly equivalent to the femoral route.


METHODS
Fifty randomly selected patients with coronary artery disease were included. FFR was measured with a pressure monitoring wire and the recording was digitally stored. Hyperemia was successively induced by adenosine via the antecubital vein at a dose of 140 microg kg(-1) min(-1) (A140), via the antecubital vein at a dose of 170 microg kg(-1) min(-1) (A170), and via the femoral vein at a dose of 140 microg kg(-1) min(-1) (F140).


RESULTS
Induction of hyperemia by A140 yielded significantly lower hyperemic responses than compared with A170 (P = 0.038) and F140 (P = 0.005). No significant difference was seen between adenosine administration by A170 versus F140. Hyperemic stimulation by A140 underestimated lesion severity near the ischemic threshold of FFR more frequently than the other modalities. There were no differences in side-effects between any of the dosages and routes of administration.


CONCLUSIONS
The intravenous application of adenosine via antecubital venous access is feasible but slightly less effective than the femoral approach. In this setting, an antecubital dosage of 170 microg kg(-1) min(-1) is comparable to the standard dosage of 140 microg kg(-1) min(-1) in the femoral vein. In some patients, this regimen might prevent an underestimation of lesion severity.
Lindstaedt
Michael
M
Medizinische Klinik II, Universitätsklinik Bergmannsheil, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 44789 Bochum, Germany. michael.lindstaedt@rub.de
Bojara
Waldemar
W
Holland-Letz
Tim
T
Yazar
Aydan
A
Fadgyas
Thomas
T
Müller
Lucie
L
Mügge
Andreas
A
Germing
Alfried
A
D000241:Adenosine / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001132:Arm / Q000098:blood supply; D006328:Cardiac Catheterization; D017023:Coronary Angiography; D003324:Coronary Artery Disease / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000503:physiopathology; D003326:Coronary Circulation / Q000187:drug effects; D003331:Coronary Vessels / Q000187:drug effects / Q000503:physiopathology; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D005260:Female; D005268:Femoral Vein; D006801:Humans; D006940:Hyperemia / Q000139:chemically induced*; D007262:Infusions, Intravenous; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D014665:Vasodilator Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects
D014665:Vasodilator Agents; D000241:Adenosine
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2000 Jan;49(1):1-16
10627357
Circulation. 1990 Nov;82(5):1595-606
2225364
Am Heart J. 2004 Oct;148(4):590-5
15459587
JAMA. 2000 Dec 20;284(23):3043-5
11122593
Eur Heart J. 2005 Dec;26(24):2623-9
16141256
Clin Res Cardiol. 2008 Dec;97(12):905-12
18777000
Circulation. 2003 Apr 15;107(14):1877-83
12668522
N Engl J Med. 1996 Jun 27;334(26):1703-8
8637515
Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1988;15(2):76-80
3180211
Circ Res. 1975 Jul;37(1):111-7
1149181
Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1996 Oct;39(2):120-5
8922309
Eur Heart J. 2005 Apr;26(8):804-47
15769784
Am Heart J. 2007 Oct;154(4):632-6
17892983
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991 Sep;18(3):718-29
1869735
Circulation. 2000 Jan 25;101(3):318-23
10645929
Circulation. 2006 Sep 19;114(12):1321-41
16940193
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 May 29;49(21):2105-11
17531660