Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27307094›Full record

ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2016

Comparison of standard- and high-dose intracoronary adenosine for the measurement of coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR).

Jens Röther, Stephan Achenbach, Monique Tröbs, Florian Blachutzik, Holger Nef, Mohamed Marwan, Christian Schlundt

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Long-term effects of device-guided slow breathing in stable heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2019
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jens RötherDepartment of Cardiology, University of Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. jens.roether@uk-erlangen.de.
Stephan AchenbachDepartment of Cardiology, University of Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Monique TröbsDepartment of Cardiology, University of Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Florian BlachutzikDepartment of Cardiology, University of Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Holger NefDepartment of Cardiology, University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Mohamed MarwanDepartment of Cardiology, University of Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Christian SchlundtDepartment of Cardiology, University of Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeasurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) by intravenous infusion or intracoronary injection of adenosine is the reference method to determine the hemodynamic relevance of coronary artery stenoses. The goal of this prospective study was to compare standard (40 µg adenosine for the right and 80 µg for the left coronary artery) to high doses of intracoronary adenosine for FFR measurement. METHODS AND

resultsIn 130 intermediate coronary artery stenoses, two sequential FFR measurements were performed with standard-dose intracoronary application of adenosine (40 µg for the right and 80 μg for the left coronary artery), followed by one FFR measurement with a bolus of 200 μg for the right and 400 μg for the left coronary artery. There was strong correlation (r = 0.97, p < 0.001) between FFR values determined with standard-dose adenosine (0.86 ± 0.08) versus high-dose adenosine (0.85 ± 0.08). High-dose adenosine did not yield FFR values ≤0.80 or ≤0.75 significantly more frequently than standard-dose adenosine. Patients reported more discomfort after high-dose adenosine application compared to standard-dose adenosine (p < 0.001).

conclusionsFor FFR measurements with intracoronary adenosine injection, results achieved with doses of 40 µg adenosine for the right and 80 µg for the left coronary artery display no clinically relevant difference to doses of 200 and 400 µg, respectively.

Indexed as

Cardiac CatheterizationFractional Flow Reserve, MyocardialAdenosineAgedCoronary AngiographyCoronary StenosisCoronary VesselsFemaleGermanyHumansInjections, Intra-ArterialMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsAdenosineVasodilator AgentsCoronary interventionFractional flow reserveIntracoronary adenosine

Identifiers

PMID27307094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.