Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Feasibility and Improved Diagnostic Yield of Intracoronary Adenosine to Assess Microvascular Dysfunction With Bolus Thermodilution.
Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04827498 (Myocardial Ischemia Without Obstructive Coronary Stenoses), which is not on this 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.
Myocardial Ischemia Without Obstructive Coronary Stenoses: A Prospective Observational Study With Invasive Coronary Pressure and Flow Measurements and Endothelial Function Test
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differential Effects of Intravenous Versus Intracoronary Adenosine on Non-Culprit Lesion Assessment Following Acute Coronary Syndrome.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Invasive Endotyping of Angina Pectoris with Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2025Review
- Index microvascular resistance (IMR) in heart transplant patients (IMR-HT study): Study protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBolus thermodilution and intravenous adenosine are established methods for coronary microcirculatory assessment. Yet, its adoption remains low, partly due to procedural time and patient discomfort associated with intravenous adenosine. We investigated differences between intracoronary and intravenous adenosine using bolus thermodilution in terms of microcirculatory indices, procedural time, and side effects associated with adenosine in patients with myocardial ischemia and nonobstructive coronary arteries. METHODS AND
resultsIn this prospective, observational study, 102 patients with suspected myocardial ischemia and nonobstructive coronary arteries underwent measurements of mean transit time, coronary flow reserve, index of microcirculatory resistance, procedure time and patient tolerability with low-dose intracoronary adenosine, high-dose intracoronary adenosine (HDIC), and intravenous adenosine. HDIC induced greater hyperemia compared with low-dose intracoronary IC adenosine and intravenous adenosine with a shorter hyperemic mean transit time,
conclusionsIn patients with suspected myocardial ischemia and nonobstructive coronary arteries undergoing coronary microcirculatory assessment with bolus thermodilution, the use of HDIC compared with intravenous adenosine was associated with enhanced induction of hyperemia. The use of intracoronary adenosine allowed for a shorter procedure time and was better tolerated. REGISTRATION+: URL: clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT04827498.
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.