Influence of caffeine intake on intravenous adenosine-induced fractional flow reserve

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
K Ishibuchi ◽  
K Fujii ◽  
S Otsuji ◽  
S Takiuchi ◽  
K Hasegawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Adenosine Triphosphate ◽  
Fractional Flow Reserve ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Caffeine Intake ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Flow Reserve

Abstract Background This study evaluated whether caffeine abstention is required before fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement by intravenous adenosine triphosphate (ATP) administration in Japanese patients. Methods and results This study was a subanalysis of a previously published study and a total of 208 intermediate lesions that underwent FFR measurements were enrolled for this analysis. Hyperemia was induced by continuous intravenous ATP infusion at 150μg/kg/min (IVATP150) and 210μg/kg/min (IVATP210), and by intracoronary administration of nicorandil 2mg (ICNIC2mg) as a reference standard. The degree of change in the FFR value both after IVATP150 and after IVATP210, as compared with the FFR value after ICNIC2mg was similar between the caffeine and non-caffeine groups (−0.04±0.05 vs. −0.04±0.07, and 0.00±0.02 vs. 0.01±0.02, respectively). In patients who consumed caffeine before the FFR measurement, the degree of FFR change was independent of the time interval (<12 hours, 12–24 hours, and 24–48 hours) between caffeine intake and catheterization both after IVATP150 and ICNIC2mg and after IVATP210 and ICNIC2mg. Conclusion When compared with the FFR value after ICNIC2mg, the degree of change in the FFR value both after IVATP150 and after IVATP210 remained similar regardless of caffeine intake. Strict caffeine abstention before intravenous ATP-induced FFR measurement may not be required in clinical practice. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

6114Indications, procedural parameters, complications and consequences of fractional flow reserve measurements in a multicenter cohort

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Troebs ◽  
M Marwan ◽  
L Gaede ◽  
J Feyrer ◽  
B Nazli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Fractional Flow Reserve ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Flow Reserve ◽  
Adenosine Administration ◽  
Vessel Dissection

Abstract Background Determination of the Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) has become part of routine clinical practice. Contemporary clinical use, consequences as well as complications in consecutive, large cohorts have not been thoroughly investigated. We report the results of the prospective Fractional Flow Reserve Fax Registry F (FR2) conducted in Germany. Purpose To systematically analyze indications, procedural parameters, complications and consequences of intracoronary pressure measurements in a large contemporary cohort. Methods Data of 2000 consecutive patients undergoing clinically indicated FFR, iFR or pd/pa measurements in 8 interventional centres in Germany were prospectively collected in a systematic fashion. Data included basic patient characteristics, procedural aspects of intracoronary pressure measurements, associated complications, visual stenosis degree, measurement results and treatment decisions. Results Mean patient age was 68±11 years, 73% of patients were male. Of all patients, 300 patients (15%) had an acute coronary syndrome (STEMI: 9; NSTEMI: 94; unstable angina: 197) and 1002 patients (50%) had undergone previous revascularization. A mean of 1.7±0.9 measurements were performed per patient, for which an average of 1.02 pressure wires were required (more than 1 wire in 64 patients). For all 3373 interrogated lesions, median stenosis degree was 60%. Vasodilator-free measurements were performed in 415/3373 cases (12%, iFR: 346; pd/pa: 69). For vasodilation, i.v. adenosine was used in 396 cases (13%), i.c. adenosine in 2628 cases (87%), and other drugs in 10 cases (0.3%). Measurement was performed before potential revascularization in 3232 cases (96%) and during or following PCI in 141 cases. In 2958 lesions analyzed by FFR, mean FFR was 0.87, with 588 FFR measurements ≤0.80 (19.8%). Median FFR values were higher for i.c than i.v. adenosine administration (0.88 vs. 0.84), but not significantly different after adjustment for stenosis degree. In 735 cases (20.2%), intracoronary pressure measurement was followed by revascularization measures, while in 2637 cases (79.8%), no revascularization or no further revascularization was performed. In 36 out of 117 stenoses visually estimated to be ≥90%, revascularization was deferred following pressure measurement (31%). In 75 out of 2958 lesions analyzed by FFR, revascularization was performed even though FFR was >0.80 (3%). Severe complications (vessel dissection or occlusion) occurred in 5 out of 2000 patients as a consequence of intracoronary pressure measurement, resulting in death of 1 patient. Conclusion In clinical practice, the majority of intracoronary pressure measurements are performed in stenoses of intermediate angiographic severity and revascularization is deferred in approximately 80% of lesions. Vasodilator-free measurements are infrequent and route of adenosine administration has no effect on results. Complication rate is low but not negligible. Acknowledgement/Funding Abbott Vascular

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of a hyperaemic agent, intracoronary nicorandil 4mg, for invasive physiological assessments during fractional flow reserve measurement

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Nishikura ◽  
K Wakabayashi ◽  
N Aizawa ◽  
T Suzuki ◽  
K Shibata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fractional Flow Reserve ◽  
Coronary Artery Stenosis ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Cyclic Change ◽  
Reliable Index ◽  
Chest Discomfort ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Flow Reserve

Abstract Background Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is one of most reliable index for the determining the functional severity coronary artery stenosis. Adenosine is the most commonly used agent for maximal hyperaemia. However, adenosine can cause chest discomfort, bronchial hyper-reactivity, and atrioventricular block. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intracoronary nicorandil as an alternative hyperaemic agent for FFR. Methods and results We enrolled consecutive 82 patients (87 lesions) who underwent FFR measurement in our center from Nov. 2018. We compared three groups; intravenous infusion of adenosine (150 μg/kg/min); and adenosine added intracoronary nicorandil 2mg; and intracoronary nicorandil 4mg. Mean FFR value was 0.83±0.09, 0.82±0.09, 0.82±0.08, There was a strong correlation among three groups (R2>0.9). Mean cyclic change in FFR was 0.026±0.023, 0.019±0.010, 0.016±0.014, respectively, cyclic change was smallest in intracoronary nicorandil 4mg group (vs ATP; p<0.001, vs ATP + nicorandil 2mg; p<0.001). By Wilcoxon test, mean FFR value of nicorandil 4mg was significant lower than ATP (p=0.0021), and equal to ATP + nicorandil 2mg (p=0.98). Conclusions Intracoronary nicorandil 4mg is a simple, safe, and effective way to induce steady-state hyperaemia for FFR. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

P5617Repeatability of instantaneous wave-free ratio in comparison with fractional flow reserve

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Horie ◽  
M Hoshino ◽  
H Hirano ◽  
Y Kanno ◽  
H Ohya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Fractional Flow Reserve ◽  
Repeated Measurements ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Rater Agreement ◽  
Fractional Flow ◽  
Flow Reserve ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Two Indices

Abstract Background Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) has been recently introduced as an adenosine free alternative for fractional flow reserve (FFR) to assess the functional significance of epicardial coronary stenosis. Little is known, however, regarding the repeatability and stability of iFR in comparison with FFR. Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of iFR and compare it to that of FFR. Methods Patients with stable coronary artery disease who underwent physiological assessment twice within 90 days were enrolled. Repeated measurements were performed at diagnostic and therapeutic catheterization in about 70% of studied population. The remaining patients were measured twice for non-culprit lesion assessment at primary PCI and subsequent non-culprit and ischemia-documented lesion PCI. The calculation of iFRmatlab from DICOM pressure tracing data of resting state was performed using a fully automated off-line software algorithm in a blind fashion. FFR values were also measured by a fully automated algorithm in the same core laboratory by using hyperemic pressure tracing data. The repeatability of the two indices were evaluated and compared. The inter-rater agreement between iFRmatlab and FFR values of two measurements was assessed by κ coefficient. The pressure rate product during each assessment was also documented and evaluated. Results Ninety-three lesions from 92 patients were included in the study. The time interval between the two assessments was 38.4±19.0 days. iFRmatlab and FFR both showed significant correlation within the two assessments (iFRmatlab: r=0.75, 95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.83; mean difference, −0.006 [−0.18 to −0.01], FFR: r=0.86, 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 0.90; mean difference, 0.004 [−0.07 to 0.03]). The inter-rater agreement of functional ischemia for iFRmatlab and FFR were κ=0.449 and κ=0.732, respectively. Although the prevalence of functional ischemia during the first and second assessment were consistent for both indices (iFRmatlab: 70.0%/67.7%, FFR: 86.0%/ 86.0%), significant difference was observed in the prevalence of clinical disagreement on the diagnosis of functional ischemia (FFR=0.80, iFR=0.89 used as cut-off values, respectively) between the first and second assessment among the two indices (iFRmatlab: 6.5%, FFR: 23.7%, p=0.002). iFRmatlab was significantly associated with pressure rate product during the examination compared to FFR (iFRmatlab: r= −0.25, 95% confidence interval, −0.43 to −0.04, P=0.018, FFR: r=−0.08, 95% confidence interval, −0.28 to −0.13, p=0.467). Conclusion Our results suggested that iFRmatlab showed lower repeatability and reliability for decision making compared to FFR. The instability of iFRmatlab potentially derives at least in part from its association with heart rate and blood pressure product.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document