Casella Gianni, Leibig Marcus, Schiele Thomas M, Schrepf Reiner, Seelig Victoria, Stempfle Hans-Ulrich, Erdin Petra, Rieber Johannes, König Andreas, Siebert Uwe, Klauss Volker
Department of Cardiology, Medizinische Poliklinik - Klinikum Innenstadt, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.
Am Heart J. 2004 Oct;148(4):590-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.04.008.
Achievement of maximal hyperemia of the coronary microcirculation is a prerequisite for the measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR). Intravenous adenosine is considered the standard method, but its use in the catheterization laboratory is time consuming and expensive compared with intracoronary adenosine. Therefore, this study compared different high, intracoronary doses of adenosine for the potential to achieve a maximal hyperemia equivalent to the standard intravenous route.
FFR was assessed in 50 patients with 50 intermediate lesions during cardiac catheterization. FFR was calculated as the ratio of the distal coronary pressure to the aortic pressure at hyperemia. Different incremental doses of intracoronary adenosine (60, 90, 120, and 150 microg as boli) and a standard intravenous infusion of 140 microg/kg/min were administered in a randomized fashion.
Different incremental doses of intracoronary adenosine were well tolerated, with fewer systemic adverse effects than intravenous adenosine. At baseline, there were no significant differences for mean aortic and distal coronary pressure or heart rate in the different adenosine doses and routes. FFR decreased with increasing adenosine doses, with the lowest values observed with the 150-microg intracoronary bolus and 140-microg/kg/min dose of intravenous adenosine. All intracoronary doses, except the 150-microg bolus, resulted in mean FFR values that were significantly (P <.05) higher than FFR after the administration intravenous adenosine. Furthermore, 5 patients (10%) with a FFR value >0.75 and 3 subjects (6%) with a FFR value >0.80 who received a 60-microg intracoronary bolus reached a value below the cutoff point of 0.75 with the intravenous administration.
This study suggests a dose-response relationship on hyperemia for intracoronary adenosine doses >60 microg. The administration of very high intracoronary adenosine boli is safe and associated with fewer systemic adverse effects than standard intravenous adenosine. However, intravenous adenosine administration with 140 microg/kg/min produced a more pronounced hyperemia than intracoronary adenosine in most patients and should be the preferred mode of application for the assessment of FFR.
实现冠状动脉微循环的最大充血是测量血流储备分数(FFR)的前提条件。静脉注射腺苷被认为是标准方法,但与冠状动脉内注射腺苷相比,其在导管室的使用既耗时又昂贵。因此,本研究比较了不同高剂量冠状动脉内注射腺苷实现与标准静脉途径相当的最大充血的可能性。
在50例接受心脏导管检查且有50处中度病变的患者中评估FFR。FFR计算为充血时冠状动脉远端压力与主动脉压力之比。以随机方式给予不同递增剂量的冠状动脉内腺苷(60、90、120和150微克推注)以及140微克/千克/分钟的标准静脉输注。
不同递增剂量的冠状动脉内腺苷耐受性良好,全身不良反应比静脉注射腺苷少。基线时,不同腺苷剂量和给药途径在平均主动脉和冠状动脉远端压力或心率方面无显著差异。FFR随腺苷剂量增加而降低,冠状动脉内150微克推注和静脉注射140微克/千克/分钟剂量时观察到最低值。除150微克推注外,所有冠状动脉内剂量导致的平均FFR值均显著高于静脉注射腺苷后的FFR值(P<.05)。此外,接受60微克冠状动脉内推注且FFR值>0.75的5例患者(10%)和FFR值>0.80的3例受试者(6%)在静脉给药时FFR值降至0.75的临界值以下。
本研究表明冠状动脉内腺苷剂量>60微克时充血存在剂量反应关系。冠状动脉内给予非常高剂量的腺苷推注是安全的,且全身不良反应比标准静脉注射腺苷少。然而,在大多数患者中,140微克/千克/分钟的静脉注射腺苷比冠状动脉内腺苷产生更明显的充血,应作为评估FFR的首选给药方式。