ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2022
Efficacy and Safety of High-Dose Intracoronary Adenosine Injection in Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Nitroglycerin-Induced Pressure Ratio Drop and Resting Full-Cycle Ratio in a Pressure Wire Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Effect of prolonged pressure equalization on final drifting during pressure wire studies.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Kidney protection strategy lowers the risk of contrast-associated acute kidney injury.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The recommended dosage of intracoronary adenosine in fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment is controversial. High-dose adenosine may overcome the biological variability of adenosine response in hyperemia. Objectives: We aimed to test the efficacy and safety of a high-dose escalation protocol at our institute. Methods: Using the adenosine dose escalation protocol, the percentages of FFR ≤ 0.75 and 0.80 after high-dose escalation were compared with those at conventional doses. The chi-squared test was used to evaluate the accuracy of FFR values with the tested doses by comparing them with the results of a non-invasive pretest. Results: A total of 87 patients (130 vessels) were included, and protocol adherence was 93.1%. High-dose intracoronary adenosine was injected in 78.5% of the vessels. The dose escalation strategy was well-tolerated without serious complications. The positive rate increased significantly after conducting the protocol compared to that with a conventional dose (28.2% vs. 23.6% with an FFR threshold of 0.75, and 48.7% vs. 42.5% with a threshold of 0.80, both p < 0.05). In the validation cohort, only FFR ≤ 0.75 was associated with the binary result of the non-invasive pretest (p < 0.01 vs. p = 0.37). The high-dose adenosine escalation strategy did not increase the accuracy of FFR (77.8% vs. 75.6% in conventional dose and high-dose adenosine, respectively). Conclusions: The use of a high-dose escalation strategy increased the positive rate in FFR assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.