Comparison of the prognostic value of non-ischaemic fractional flow reserve using intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine.

AIMS: Intracoronary adenosine (ICA) yields similar fractional flow reserve (FFR) results to the "gold standard" of intravenous adenosine (IVA). Whether they have similar prognostic significance is unknown. We therefore sought to study the prognostic value of the route of adenosine administration for the measurement of FFR in deferred coronary lesions in a large, real-world cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: Five hundred and seventy-six patients with 787 lesions in whom PCI was deferred based on FFR >0.75 were studied. The primary outcome was the first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; defined as death, myocardial infarction [MI], or target vessel revascularisation [TVR]), and the secondary outcome was a composite of MI and target vessel failure (TVF). FFR was measured with ICA in 426 lesions and IVA in 361 lesions. Median follow-up duration was 3.2 years (interquartile range: 1.7- 4.6). Propensity-matched cohorts of ICA and IVA were well matched for baseline clinical, angiographic and haemodynamic characteristics. In the propensity-matched cohort, MACE occurred in 23.5% of the ICA group and in 22.3% of the IVA group (p=0.29). On multivariate analysis, acute coronary syndrome, FFR and prior MI/revascularisation were independent predictors of MACE and MI/TVF. The route of adenosine administration was not predictive of MACE or MI/TVF. CONCLUSIONS: ICA and IVA yield similar FFR values and show comparable long-term prognostic utility in a deferred population. These findings provide confirmation that non-ischaemic FFR using a simpler ICA protocol provides prognostic data similar to the gold standard IVA.

Systematic oral hydration with water is similar to parenteral hydration for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: an updated meta-analysis of randomised clinical data.

BACKGROUND: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is the third most common cause of hospital-acquired kidney injury and is related to increased long-term morbidity and mortality. Adequate intravenous (IV) hydration has been demonstrated to lessen its occurrence. Oral (PO) hydration with water is inexpensive and readily available but its role for CIN prevention is yet to be determined. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched until April 2015 and studies were selected using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. All randomised clinical trials with head-to-head comparison between PO and IV hydration were included. RESULTS: A total of 5 studies with 477 patients were included in the analysis, 255 of those receiving PO water. The incidence of CIN was statistically similar in the IV and PO arms (7.7% and 8.2%, respectively; relative risk 0.97; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.94; p=0.95). The incidence of CIN was statistically similar in the IV and PO arms in patients with chronic kidney disease and with normal renal function. Rise in creatinine at 48-72 h was lower in the PO hydration group compared with IV hydration (pooled standard mean difference 0.04; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.06; p<0.001; I(2)=62%). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis shows that systematic PO hydration with water is at least as effective as IV hydration with saline to prevent CIN. PO hydration is cheaper and more easily administered than IV hydration, thus making it more attractive and just as effective.