Medizinische Klinik II, Universitätsklinik Bergmannsheil, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 44789 Bochum, Germany.
Clin Res Cardiol. 2009 Nov;98(11):717-23. doi: 10.1007/s00392-009-0056-7. Epub 2009 Aug 15.
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.
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).
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.
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.
最大充血是正确测量分数流量储备(FFR)的关键前提。通过股静脉通路持续给予腺苷被认为是金标准。然而,由于桡动脉相对于股动脉入路在冠状动脉造影中的应用越来越普及,因此也可以选择肘前静脉作为给药的替代途径。由于手臂的静脉横截面积可能更大-理论上与血流速度较慢有关-以及腺苷的半衰期极短,因此有人担心这种给药途径是否真的等同于股静脉途径。
本研究纳入了 50 例随机选择的冠心病患者。使用压力监测导丝测量 FFR,并对记录进行数字存储。依次通过肘前静脉以 140μgkg-1min-1 的剂量(A140)、肘前静脉以 170μgkg-1min-1 的剂量(A170)和股静脉以 140μgkg-1min-1 的剂量(F140)给予腺苷以诱导充血。
与 A170(P=0.038)和 F140(P=0.005)相比,A140 诱导充血时的充血反应明显较低。A170 与 F140 之间的腺苷给药无显著差异。与其他方式相比,A140 充血刺激在接近 FFR 缺血阈值时更频繁地低估了病变严重程度。在任何剂量和给药途径之间,副作用均无差异。
通过肘前静脉通路静脉内给予腺苷是可行的,但效果略低于股静脉途径。在此情况下,肘前静脉给予 170μgkg-1min-1 的剂量与股静脉内给予标准剂量 140μgkg-1min-1 相当。在某些患者中,这种方案可能会防止低估病变严重程度。