Suppr超能文献

冠状动脉反应性测试中静脉注射与冠状动脉内注射腺苷的评估。

Evaluation of Intravenous Versus Intracoronary Adenosine in Coronary Reactivity Testing.

作者信息

Dalal Fazal, Escobedo Yissela, Exaire Jose Emilio, Mixon Timothy A, Al-Azizi Karim, Kumar Y Darren, Potluri Srini, Widmer R Jay

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Baylor Scott and White, Temple, Texas.

Department of Internal Medicine, Baylor Scott and White, Temple, Texas; Division of Cardiology, Baylor Scott and White, Temple, Texas.

出版信息

Am J Cardiol. 2025 Jan 1;234:9-13. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.10.011. Epub 2024 Oct 23.

Abstract

Coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) obtained through coronary bolus thermodilution are used to assess and treat patients with angina and no obstructive coronary artery disease. Previous studies demonstrate comparable results assessing epicardial ischemia by fractional flow reserve using intravenous (IV) or intracoronary (IC) adenosine. It is unknown if there is a similarity between IC and IV hyperemia with adenosine when performing coronary reactivity testing (CRT). We reviewed CRT data and baseline demographics in a cohort of patients who underwent CRT for ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease. We evaluated CFR and IMR in patients whereby maximal hyperemia was obtained by both IC and IV means using linear regression, one-way analysis of variance, Wilcoxon, and Bland-Altman analysis. We assessed 62 patients with a median age of 60.5 years (50 to 67), and 72% were females. The average CFR with IC adenosine was 3.12 (2.31 to 4.06) and 2.71 (2.0 to 3.88) with IV adenosine, with an R value of 0.50 (p <0.0001). The average IMR with IC adenosine was 28.23 (16.24 to 50.72) and 22.27 (14.79 to 37.0) with IV adenosine, with an R value of 0.33 (p <0.0001). Average intra-method variability between IC and IV adenosine was nonsignificant (p = 0.31 for CFR and p = 0.55 for IMR). Bland-Altman analysis showed reasonable agreement between IV and IC adenosine for CFR and IMR with slightly higher values using IC adenosine. Therefore, in CRT with bolus thermodilution, CFR and IMR values obtained with IC adenosine correlate well with those obtained with IV adenosine. This presents a potential alternative to IV adenosine for bolus thermodilution CRT.

摘要

通过冠状动脉团注热稀释法获得的冠状动脉血流储备(CFR)和微循环阻力指数(IMR),用于评估和治疗患有心绞痛且无阻塞性冠状动脉疾病的患者。先前的研究表明,使用静脉内(IV)或冠状动脉内(IC)腺苷通过血流储备分数评估心外膜缺血可得到相似的结果。在进行冠状动脉反应性测试(CRT)时,IC和IV腺苷充血之间是否存在相似性尚不清楚。我们回顾了一组因缺血且无阻塞性冠状动脉疾病而接受CRT的患者的CRT数据和基线人口统计学资料。我们使用线性回归、单因素方差分析、Wilcoxon分析和Bland-Altman分析,评估了通过IC和IV两种方式获得最大充血时患者的CFR和IMR。我们评估了62例患者,中位年龄为60.5岁(50至67岁),72%为女性。IC腺苷的平均CFR为3.12(2.31至4.06),IV腺苷的平均CFR为2.71(2.0至3.88),R值为0.50(p<0.0001)。IC腺苷的平均IMR为28.23(从16.24至50.72),IV腺苷的平均IMR为22.27(从14.79至37.0),R值为0.33(p<0.0001)。IC和IV腺苷之间的平均方法内变异性不显著(CFR为p = 0.31,IMR为p = 0.55)。Bland-Altman分析显示,IV和IC腺苷在CFR和IMR方面具有合理一致性,IC腺苷的值略高。因此,在团注热稀释法CRT中,IC腺苷获得的CFR和IMR值与IV腺苷获得的值具有良好的相关性。这为团注热稀释法CRT提供了一种潜在的IV腺苷替代方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验