Influence of caffeine intake on intravenous adenosine-induced fractional flow reserve.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated whether caffeine abstention is required before fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement by intravenous adenosine triphosphate (ATP) administration in Japanese patients. METHODS: This study was a subanalysis of a previously published study and a total of 208 intermediate lesions that underwent FFR measurements were enrolled for this analysis. Hyperemia was induced by continuous intravenous ATP infusion at 150 µg/kg/min (IVATP150) and 210 µg/kg/min (IVATP210), and by intracoronary administration of nicorandil 2 mg (ICNIC2mg) as a reference standard. RESULTS: The degree of change in the FFR value after ICNIC2mg and IVATP210 was similar between the caffeine and non-caffeine groups (0.00 ± 0.02 vs. 0.01 ± 0.02). In patients who consumed caffeine before the FFR measurement, the degree of FFR change was independent of the time interval (<12 h, 12-24 h, and 24-48 h) between caffeine intake and catheterization both after IVATP150 and ICNIC2mg and after IVATP210 and ICNIC2mg. CONCLUSION: When compared with the FFR value after ICNIC2mg, the degree of change in the FFR value after IVATP210 were similar regardless of caffeine intake. Strict caffeine abstention before intravenous ATP-induced FFR measurement may not be required in clinical practice.

Invasive fractional flow reserve: Which technology is best?

Invasive pressure measurements using hyperemic fractional flow reserve (FFR) and nonhyperemic pressure measurements (NHPR) are superior to angiography alone for assessment of 50-90% stenoses. FFR devices using piezoelectric and optical sensors achieve 94% concordance in FFR values; microcatheter designs have more lesion-crossing failures and less pressure drift compared with guidewire designs. Despite the similarity in statistical performance among FFR devices, interventional cardiologists may prefer to use NHPR to avoid the need for adenosine-related side effects, variations in vasodilator response, and limited application in patients with certain clinical and anatomic features.

Ticagrelor and preconditioning in patients with stable coronary artery disease (TAPER-S): a randomized pilot clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor is a reversibly binding, direct-acting, oral, P2Y12 antagonist used for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Ticagrelor blocks adenosine reuptake through the inhibition of equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (ENT-1) on erythrocytes and platelets, thereby facilitating adenosine-induced physiological responses such as an increase in coronary blood flow velocity. Meanwhile, adenosine plays an important role in triggering ischemic preconditioning through the activation of the A1 receptor. Therefore, an increase in ticagrelor-enhanced adenosine bioavailability may confer beneficial effects through mechanisms related to preconditioning activation and improvement of coronary microvascular dysfunction. METHODS: To determine whether ticagrelor can trigger ischemic preconditioning and influence microvascular function, we designed this prospective, open-label, pilot study that enrolled patients with stable multivessel CAD requiring staged, fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Participants will be randomized in 1:1 ratios either to ticagrelor (loading dose (LD) 180 mg, maintenance dose (MD) 90 mg bid) or to clopidogrel (LD 600 mg, MD 75 mg) from 3 to 1 days before the scheduled PCI. The PCI operators will be blinded to the randomization arm. The primary endpoint is the delta (difference) between ST segment elevations (in millimeters, mm) as assessed by intracoronary electrocardiogram (ECG) during the two-step sequential coronary balloon inflation in the culprit vessel. Secondary endpoints are 1) changes in coronary flow reserve (CFR), index of microvascular resistance (IMR), and FFR measured in the culprit vessel and reference vessel at the end of PCI, and 2) angina score during inflations. This study started in 2018 with the aim of enrolling 100 patients. Based on the rate of negative FFR up to 30% and a drop-out rate up to 10%, we expect to detect an absolute difference of 4 mm among the study arms in the mean change of ST elevation following repeated balloon inflations. All study procedures were reviewed and approved by the Ethical Committee of the Catholic University of Sacred Heart. DISCUSSION: Ticagrelor might improve ischemia tolerance and microvascular function compared to clopidogrel, and these effects might translate to better long-term clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT No. 2016-004746-28. No. NCT02701140.  TRIAL STATUS: Information provided in this manuscript refers to the definitive version (n. 3.0) of the study protocol, dated 31 October 2017, and includes all protocol amendments. Recruitment started on 18 September 2018 and is currently ongoing. The enrollment is expected to be completed by the end of 2019. TRIAL SPONSOR: Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli - Roma, Polo di Scienze Cardiovascolari e Toraciche, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168 Rome, Italy.

Continuous intracoronary versus standard intravenous infusion of adenosine for fractional flow reserve assessment: the HYPEREMIC trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a continuous intracoronary (IC) adenosine infusion, administered through the novel HYPEREM™IC over-the-wire microcatheter, to measure fractional flow reserve (FFR). METHODS AND RESULTS: The HYPEREMIC trial was a randomised, non-inferiority, crossover study in which patients with intermediate coronary lesions were enrolled for sequential pressure wire studies. FFR was measured using intravenous (IV) (140-180 mcg/kg/min) versus continuous non-weight-adjusted IC (360 mcg/min) adenosine. Patients were randomised and blinded to the order in which they received the adenosine, separated by a washout period. The primary endpoint was the mean hyperaemic FFR. Forty-one patients were enrolled at three UK sites between June and November 2016. The mean (standard deviation) FFR was 0.82 (±0.09) after IC versus 0.84 (±0.09) after IV adenosine. The difference of -0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.03 to -0.01) confirmed the non-inferiority (margin <0.05) of IC to IV adenosine. Intracoronary adenosine was associated with a shorter mean time to maximal hyperaemia (difference -44 [95% CI: -59 to -29] seconds; p<0.0001). Chest discomfort was reported in 32/41 (78.0%) patients during IV adenosine versus 12/41 (29.3%) patients during IC adenosine. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous IC adenosine was a reliable, faster and better tolerated method of achieving maximal hyperaemia compared to IV adenosine.

Interindividual Variations in the Adenosine-Induced Hemodynamics During Fractional Flow Reserve Evaluation: Implications for the Use of Quantitative Flow Ratio in Assessing Intermediate Coronary Stenoses.

Background Quantitative flow ratio (QFR), a novel functional angiography technique, computes fractional flow reserve (FFR) without pressure wires or adenosine. We investigated interindividual variations in the adenosine-induced hemodynamics during FFR assessment and their influence on QFR diagnostic performance. Methods and Results Patients with coronary stenoses who underwent intracoronary pressure and flow assessment were analyzed. Adenosine-induced hemodynamics during FFR measurement were determined by the percentage change in mean aortic pressure (%ΔPa) and the resistive reserve ratio (RRR). The diagnostic performance of QFR was evaluated and compared in each tertile of %ΔPa and RRR using FFR as reference. A total of 294 vessels (245 patients) were analyzed. Mean FFR was 0.80±0.11. Individuals showed a wide variation in the adenosine response in terms of %ΔPa (ranging from -75% to 43%; median, -9% [interquartile range, -3% to -17%]) and the RRR (ranging from 0.45 to 20.15; median, 3.1 [interquartile range, 2.1-4.9]). No significant differences for diagnostic efficiency of QFR were found between tertiles of %ΔPa (area under the curve for the receiver-operating characteristic analysis, 0.950 in tertile 1, 0.929 in tertile 2, and 0.910 in tertile 3; P=0.270) or between tertiles of the RRR (area under the curve for the receiver-operating characteristic analysis, 0.909 in tertile 1, 0.923 in tertile 2, and 0.959 in tertile 3; P=0.167). The classification agreement between QFR and FFR was not significantly modified by %ΔPa (tertile 1, 89%; tertile 2, 87%; and tertile 3, 86%; P=0.827) or by the RRR (tertile 1, 86%; tertile 2, 85%; and tertile 3, 91%; P=0.398). Conclusions Patients undergoing FFR assessment show large interindividual variations in the magnitude of adenosine-induced hemodynamics. However, such variations do not affect the diagnostic performance of QFR in assessing the functional relevance of observed stenoses.

Effect of intracoronary adenosine on ergonovine-induced vasoconstricted coronary arteries.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of adenosine on epicardial coronary artery diameter during ergonovine provocation testing. METHODS: A total of 158 patients who underwent an ergonovine provocation test with intracoronary adenosine injection between 2011 and 2014 were selected. Patients were divided into four groups based on the severity of percent diameter stenosis following intracoronary ergonovine administration: Group 1, induced spasm < 50%; Group 2, 50-89%; Group 3, 90-99%; and Group 4, total occlusion. RESULTS: Spasm positivity was observed in 44 (27.8%) cases in the study population (mean age, 57.4 ± ± 10.7 years). Intracoronary adenosine increased the diameter of the ergonovine-induced epicardial artery by 0.51 ± 0.31 mm, 0.73 ± 0.39 mm, 0.44 ± 0.59 mm, and 0.01 ± 0.04 mm in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Subsequent administration of nitroglycerin further increased vessel diameter by 0.49 ± 0.28 mm, 0.93 ± 0.68 mm, 2.11 ± 1.25 mm, and 2.23 ± 0.69 mm in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The ratios of adenosine-induced diameter to reference diameter were significantly lower in patients with spasm positive results (0.68 [0.59-0.76] vs. 0.18 [0.00-0.41], p < 0.001 in the study population; 0.60 [0.54-0.67] vs. 0.40 [0.27-0.44], p < 0.001 in Group 2) with the best cut-off value of 0.505 (sensitivity 0.955, specificity 0.921). CONCLUSIONS: Intracoronary administration of adenosine dilated the ergonovine-induced vasoconstricted epicardial coronary artery. The ratio of adenosine-induced diameter to reference diameter was significantly lower in patients with spasm positive results.

Impact of increasing dose of intracoronary adenosine on peak hyperemia duration during fractional flow reserve assessment.

BACKGROUND: Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) is currently indicated as a first line strategy for the functional assessment of intermediate coronary stenoses. However, the protocol for inducing hyperemia still lacks standardization. Intracoronary adenosine boli, with a progressive increase to high-dosage, have been proposed as a sensitive and accurate strategy for the classification of coronary stenoses, although being potentially affected by the achievement of plateau of the effect and by a less prolonged and stable hyperemia as compared to intravenous administration. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to define the conditioning parameters and assess the impact of increasing-dose intracoronary adenosine on peak hyperemia duration in patients undergoing FFR for intermediate coronary stenoses. METHODS: FFR was assessed in patients with intermediate (40 to 70%) lesions by pressure-recording guidewire (Prime Wire, Volcano), after induction of hyperemia with intracoronary boli of adenosine (from 60 to 1440 µg, with dose doubling at each step). Hyperemic duration was defined as the time for the variation form minimum FFR ±â€¯0.02 and time to recovery till baseline values. RESULTS: We included 87 patients, undergoing FFR evaluation of 101 lesions. Mean peak hyperemia duration and time to recovery significantly increased with adenosine doses escalation (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001). Peak hyperemia duration and time to recovery with 1440 µg adenosine were 14.5 ±â€¯12.6 s and 45.2 ±â€¯30.7 s, respectively. Hyperemia duration was not related to Quantitative Coronary Angiography (QCA) parameters or FFR values. In fact, a similar increase in the time of hyperemic peak was noted when comparing patients with positive or negative FFR (pbetween = 0.87) or patients with lesions < or ≥20 mm (pbetween = 0.92) and lesions involving left main coronary or proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) (pbetween = 0.07). A linear relationship was observed between time to recovery and FFR variations, with a greater time to baseline required in patients with FFR ≤ 0.80 (p = 0.003) and in lesions ≥ 20 mm (p = 0.006), but not in LAD/LM lesions (p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows a progressive raise in the duration of peak hyperemia and time to recovery, after the administration of increasing doses of intracoronary adenosine for the assessment of FFR. Therefore, considering the potential advantages of a high-dose adenosine protocol, allowing a more prolonged hyperemia and a more precise and reliable measurement of FFR, further larger studies with such FFR strategy should certainly be advocated to confirm its safety and benefits, before its routinely use recommendation.

Contrast Fractional Flow Reserve (cFFR): A pragmatic response to the call for simplification of invasive functional assessment.

AIM: To review the current approaches to simplify functional assessment of coronary stenosis with particular regard for contrast Fractional Flow Reserve (cFFR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Maximal hyperaemia to assess FFR is perceived as time-consuming, costly, unpleasant for the patient and associated with side effects. Resting indexes, like Pd/Pa and iFR, have been proposed to circumvent the use of vasodilators as well as an approach based on the administration of contrast medium to induce coronary vasodilation, the cFFR. Contrast FFR can be obtained quickly, at very low cost in the absence of substantial side effects. Among these alternative indexes, cFFR shows the best correlation with FFR, reduces the use of adenosine even more than a hybrid resting approach but has not yet been tested in a randomized, controlled trial with clinical end-points. CONCLUSION: cFFR represents a cheap, safe and effective alternative to FFR, able to facilitate the dissemination of a functional approach to myocardial revascularization.

Intravenous nicorandil versus adenosine for fractional flow reserve measurement: a crossover, randomized study.

Nicorandil has vasodilatory effects on both the epicardial coronary arteries and the coronary microvasculature, thereby increasing coronary blood flow. The objective of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness of intravenous (IV) nicorandil infusion for fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement. In this crossover randomized study, 49 patients underwent FFR measurement with a consecutive randomized order of patient-blind infusions of continuous IV adenosine administration and a single bolus IV administration of nicorandil. The primary endpoint was the difference between the FFR by nicorandil and the FFR by adenosine, as assessed by the Bland-Altman method. The mean FFR value measured by nicorandil was not significantly different from that measured by adenosine [0.8125 ± 0.1349 vs. 0.7978 ± 0.124; mean difference, 0.0147 (95% confidence interval - 0.0373, 0.0667); P = 0.58]. There was no clinically significant diagnostic discordance, with the FFR by nicorandil > 0.80 and that by adenosine < 0.75. Hyperemia was achieved earlier using nicorandil than adenosine (34 ± 13 vs. 58 ± 15, P < 0.001). The duration of hyperemia after IV nicorandil was variable (6-570 s, mean 89 ± 98 s). IV nicorandil decreased systolic blood pressure by 32 ± 16 mm Hg (24 ± 10%) from baseline. Linear regression analysis showed that the average FFR value and the difference in systolic blood pressure were significantly associated with the bias in the FFR value between the two drugs. In conclusions, the results of the present study suggest that IV nicorandil can achieve maximal hyperemia easily and rapidly, providing an acceptable diagnostic performance for FFR assessment. However, a wide range of variation in hyperemic plateau and a decrease in blood pressure are the major limitations of this method.

Intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine to assess fractional flow reserve: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Intravenous infusion of adenosine is the reference method to measure fractional flow reserve (FFR). Intracoronary boluses are often used because of time and convenience, but their effectiveness has yet to be assessed. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies directly comparing intravenous and intracoronary adenosine administration for FFR measurement. FFR values and prevalence of functionally critical lesions obtained with the different methods of adenosine administration were compared. RESULTS: Twelve studies evaluating 781 lesions from 731 patients were included (63.7 years, 25.5% women, median FFR 0.82). FFR values were significantly lower with intravenous adenosine than with intracoronary adenosine [mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00-0.02, P = 0.005], even if no significant differences were observed when only high doses of intracoronary adenosine (≥150 µg) were considered. The prevalence of functionally critical lesions did not significantly differ between intracoronary and intravenous adenosine. Concerning the use of different doses of intracoronary adenosine, low doses (≤60 µg) were associated with higher FFR values (mean difference 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.03, P < 0.001) and fewer functionally critical lesions (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40-0.81, P = 0.002) compared with high doses. Meta-regression analysis did not show any significant interaction between the way of adenosine administration and main clinical features. Intracoronary adenosine was associated with a higher incidence of atrioventricular blocks, whereas angina and/or systemic symptoms were more frequent with intravenous adenosine. CONCLUSION: Intracoronary adenosine might be as effective as intravenous adenosine to measure FFR, provided that adequate doses are used. Intracoronary adenosine represents a valuable alternative to intravenous adenosine whenever appropriately administered.

Safety and efficacy of intracoronary sodium nitroprusside for the assessment of coronary fractional flow reserve.

BACKGROUND: Coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) determination is a valuable tool for the assessment of stenosis significance in intermediate coronary obstructions. Maximal hyperemia is mandatory for this determination. Although intravenous (IV) Adenosine is the standard agent used, its use carries an elevated incidence of side effects. Intracoronary sodium nitroprusside (IC NTP) is a very well-known coronary vasodilator, but it is not routinely used for FFR determinations. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to compare FFR determinations and side effect profile of IC NTP with IV Adenosine. METHODS: We prospectively assessed FFR determinations in a total of 20 intermediate coronary artery stenotic lesions in 18 consecutive patients with the administration of IV Adenosine (140 µg/kg/min) and IC NTP (100 µg). The appearance of side effects was registered. RESULTS: The mean age was 55.5 ±â€¯7.5 years. Fifteen (83%) of the patients were male. Mean FFR values with IC NTP were similar to those obtained with IV Adenosine (0.82 ±â€¯0.07 vs 0.82 ±â€¯0.06, respectively, r = 0.775, p < 0.0001). Intravenous Adenosine induced side effects in 45% of patients (shortness of breath 30%, flushing 5%, headache 5%, angina pectoris 5%, and transient conduction disturbances 10%). No side effects were reported with IC NTP. CONCLUSIONS: IC NTP at a dose of 100 µg is as effective as IV Adenosine for FFR assessment. Besides, it is better tolerated and should be consider as a vasodilator agent in the assessment of FFR.

Effects of caffeine on fractional flow reserve values measured using intravenous adenosine triphosphate.

We investigated the effects of caffeine intake on fractional flow reserve (FFR) values measured using intravenous adenosine triphosphate (ATP) before cardiac catheterization. Caffeine is a competitive antagonist for adenosine receptors; however, it is unclear whether this antagonism affects FFR values. Patients were evenly randomized into 2 groups preceding the FFR study. In the caffeine group (n = 15), participants were given coffee containing 222 mg of caffeine 2 h before the catheterization. In the non-caffeine group (n = 15), participants were instructed not to take any caffeine-containing drinks or foods for at least 12 h before the catheterization. FFR was performed in patients with more than intermediate coronary stenosis using the intravenous infusion of ATP at 140 µg/kg/min (normal dose) and 170 µg/kg/min (high dose), and the intracoronary infusion of papaverine. FFR was followed for 30 s after maximal hyperemia. In the non-caffeine group, the FFR values measured with ATP infusion were not significantly different from those measured with papaverine infusion. However, in the caffeine group, the FFR values were significantly higher after ATP infusion than after papaverine infusion (P = 0.002 and P = 0.007, at normal and high dose ATP vs. papaverine, respectively). FFR values with ATP infusion were significantly increased 30 s after maximal hyperemia (P = 0.001 and P < 0.001 for normal and high dose ATP, respectively). The stability of the FFR values using papaverine showed no significant difference between the 2 groups. Caffeine intake before the FFR study affected FFR values and their stability. These effects could not be reversed by an increased ATP dose.

Temporal dissociation between the minimal distal-to-aortic pressure ratio and peak hyperemia during intravenous adenosine infusion.

The present study sought to compare the temporal relation between maximal coronary flow (peak hyperemia) and minimal coronary-to-aortic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa) for intracoronary (IC) and intravenous (IV) adenosine administration. Peak hyperemia is assumed to coincide with the minimal Pd/Pa value. However, this has not been confirmed for systemic hemodynamic variations during IV adenosine infusion. Hemodynamic responses to IV and IC adenosine administration were obtained in 12 patients (14 lesions) using combined IC pressure and flow velocity measurements. A fluid dynamic model was used to predict the change in Pd/Pa for different stenosis severities and varying Pa Hemodynamic variability during IV adenosine hyperemia was greater than during IC adenosine, as assessed by the coefficient of variation. During IV adenosine, flow velocity peaked 28 ± 4 (SE) s after the onset of hyperemia, while Pd/Pa reached a minimum (0.82 ± 0.01) 22 ± 7 s later (P < 0.05), when Pa had declined by 6.1% and hyperemic velocity by 4.5% (P < 0.01). Model outcomes corroborated the role of variable Pa in this dissociation. In contrast, maximal flow and minimal Pd/Pa coincided for IC adenosine, with IV-equivalent peak velocities and a higher Pd/Pa ratio (0.86 ± 0.01, P < 0.01). Hemodynamic variability during continuous IV adenosine infusion can lead to temporal dissociation of minimal Pd/Pa and peak hyperemia, in contrast to IC adenosine injection, where maximal velocity and minimal Pd/Pa coincide. Despite this variability, stenosis hemodynamics remained stable with both ways of adenosine administration. Our findings suggest advantages of IC over IV adenosine to identify maximal hyperemia from pressure-only measurements.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Systemic hemodynamic variability during intravenous adenosine infusion produces substantial temporal dissociation between peak hyperemia appraised by coronary flow velocity and the minimal distal-to-aortic pressure ratio commonly used to determine functional stenosis severity. This dissociation was absent for intracoronary adenosine administration and tended to be mitigated in patients receiving Ca2+ antagonists.

Assessment of increasing intravenous adenosine dose in fractional flow reserve.

BACKGROUND: Effects of increased adenosine dose in the assessment of fractional flow reserve (FFR) were studied in relation to FFR results, hemodynamic effects and patient discomfort. FFR require maximal hyperemia mediated by adenosine. Standard dose is 140 µg/kg/min administrated intravenously. Higher doses are commonly used in clinical practice, but an extensive comparison between standard intravenous dose and a high dose (220 µg/kg/min) has previously not been performed. METHODS: Seventy-five patients undergoing FFR received standard dose adenosine, followed by high dose adenosine. FFR, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were analyzed. Patient discomfort measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was assessed. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the doses in FFR value (0.85 [0.79-0.90] vs 0.85 [0.79-0.89], p = 0.24). The two doses correlated well irrespective of lesion severity (r = 0.86, slope = 0.89, p = <0.001). There were no differences in MAP or HR. Patient discomfort was more pronounced using high dose adenosine (8.0 [5.0-9.0]) versus standard dose (5.0 [2.0-7.0]), p = <0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Increased dose adenosine does not improve hyperemia and is associated with increased patient discomfort. Our findings do not support the use of high dose adenosine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospective Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14618196 . Registered 15 December 2016.

Impact of additional intracoronary nicorandil administration during fractional flow reserve measurement with intravenous adenosine 5'-triphosphate infusion.

BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a useful index for determining the functional severity of epicardial coronary artery stenosis as an invasive physiological method. Although intravenous adenosine 5'-triphosphate (ATP) is generally used as a hyperemic agent for FFR measurement in Japan, there are some concerns about the variability of FFR measurement (short half-life, effect of caffeine, cyclic change). It is difficult to confirm sufficient maximum hyperemia after ATP infusion. Recent studies reported that nicorandil (NIC) could be an alternative to ATP as a hyperemic agent. METHODS: Patients who underwent FFR assessments of angiographically intermediate lesions were included. All patients were asked to refrain from caffeine-containing products more than 12hours before FFR measurements. All patients first received intravenous (IV) ATP infusion (180µg/kg/min) for 3min to measure FFR (ATP-FFR). After additional intracoronary (IC) NIC administration (2mg/30s) during ATP infusion, FFR was measured again (NIC-FFR). To check cyclic change in FFR, we measured minimum and maximum FFR values during both ATP and NIC hyperemic phase. RESULTS: In this study, 94 patients with 94 lesions were enrolled. Mean FFR value was 0.81±0.10 in ATP-FFR infusion and 0.80±0.09 in NIC-FFR, respectively. ATP-FFR and NIC-FFR had a strong correlation on the whole (r=0.92, p<0.001). In 18 patients (19%), FFR values were significantly lower in NIC-FFR than in ATP-FFR. In one-third of those patients (6%), it was possible to change therapeutic strategy from deferral range (>0.80) to interventional range (≦0.80) after NIC-FFR measurements. Cyclic change in FFR was smaller in NIC-FFR than in ATP-FFR (0.03±0.02 vs. 0.06±0.05, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Additional IC NIC might be useful to confirm sufficient maximum hyperemia after IV ATP infusion in daily clinical practice. Furthermore, IC NIC could reduce cyclic change in FFR; thus, physicians might find it easier to determine FFR value during the procedure.

Efficacy of intravenous nicorandil for fractional flow reserve assessment: study protocol for a crossover randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Nicorandil has vasodilatory effects on both the epicardial coronary arteries and the coronary microvasculature, thereby increasing coronary blood flow. Intravenous administration of nicorandil can be applicable for fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement as a hyperaemic agent and a possible alternative to adenosine. However, the effectiveness of intravenous nicorandil infusion for FFR measurement is largely unclear. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This crossover randomised study is being performed to investigate the efficacy of intravenous administration of nicorandil for FFR measurement. Patients with an intermediate coronary artery stenosis who satisfy the eligibility criteria undergo FFR measurement with a consecutive randomised order of patient-blind infusions of continuous intravenous administration of adenosine and a single bolus intravenous administration of nicorandil. The primary end point of the study is the agreement between the FFR values obtained by the intravenous nicorandil and those obtained by the intravenous adenosine. Recruitment of this trial started in November 2015 and will end in March 2017, or until a total of 50 participants have been recruited. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Chiba University Hospital. Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000019309; Pre-results.

Inhibition of DPP-4 by alogliptin improves coronary flow reserve and left ventricular systolic function evaluated by phase contrast cine magnetic resonance imaging in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: The present study determined whether dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibition by alogliptin improves coronary flow reserve (CFR) and left ventricular election fraction (LVEF) in patients with type 2 DM and CAD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with type 2 DM and known or suspected CAD were randomly allocated to receive diet therapy plus alogliptin (n=10; mean age, 73.3±6.6y) or a control group given diet therapy and glimepiride (n=10; mean age, 76.7±7.3y). Breath-hold PC cine MR images of the coronary sinus (CS) were acquired using a 1.5T MR scanner and 32 channel cardiac coils to assess blood flow of the CS at rest and during adenosine triphosphate (ATP) infusion. The CFR was calculated as CS blood flow during ATP infusion divided by that at rest. The CFR and LVEF were evaluated by MRI at baseline and at three months after starting therapy. RESULTS: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was significantly reduced in both groups (alogliptin, 7.2±0.6% to 6.6±0.5%, p=0.034; control, 6.9±0.4% to 6.4±0.3%, p=0.008). However, CFR and LVEF significantly improved only in the alogliptin group (alogliptin: CFR, 2.15±0.61 to 2.85±0.80, p=0.042; LVEF, 59.4±6.3% to 68.0±8.6%, p=0.03; control: CFR, 2.17±0.37 to 2.38±0.32, p=0.19; LVEF, 58.2±9.1 to 60.3±8.8%, p=0.61). The % increases in CFR and in LVEF positively correlated (R=0.47 by Spearman's correlation coefficient; p=0.036). CONCLUSION: The inhibition of DPP-4 by alogliptin improved CFR and LVEF evaluated by MRI in patients with type 2 DM and CAD and the improvement in CFR was associated with increased LV systolic function.

Intravenous Adenosine Infusion is Safe and Well Tolerated During Coronary Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment in Elderly Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the safety of intravenous adenosine infusion during fractional flow reserve (FFR) evaluation of intermediate coronary lesions in severe aortic stenosis (AS). In severe AS, the extent of underlying coronary artery disease (CAD) can be an important determinant for deciding between surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Hemodynamic assessment of coronary lesion severity using FFR may reduce the extent of revascularization needed and make TAVR more feasible in higher-risk patients (compared with coronary artery bypass surgery with SAVR). METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed the demographic, clinical, and hemodynamic parameters of 72 patients with severe AS who underwent FFR procedure with intravenous adenosine infusion for hemodynamic assessment of intermediate coronary artery lesions. Severe AS patients were elderly, predominantly male, and had a high prevalence of peripheral arterial disease, prior myocardial infarction, left ventricular hypertrophy, and chronic kidney disease. Mean aortic valve area in these patients was 0.71 ± 0.24 cm². No patient with severe AS required discontinuation of the adenosine and all patients tolerated the infusion well. We observed a statistically significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) during adenosine infusion compared with the baseline values. However, no clinically significant adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with severe AS, adenosine infusion is safe and well tolerated during FFR evaluation of intermediate coronary lesions. There was a significantly greater drop in SBP, DBP, MAP, and HR with adenosine infusion as compared with baseline values. This, however, was not associated with clinically significant adverse events.

Safety and efficacy of intracoronary nicorandil as hyperaemic agent for invasive physiological assessment: a patient-level pooled analysis.

AIMS: Our aim was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intracoronary (IC) nicorandil as an alternative choice of hyperaemic agent for invasive physiologic studies. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 480 intermediate coronary lesions from 429 patients enrolled from six Japanese and Korean centres were analysed. IC nicorandil showed earlier achievement of hyperaemia (time to the lowest FFR: 18.0 s [1st and 3rd quartile value 15.6-21.5] vs. 44.0 s [36.0-60.0], p<0.001) with similar hyperaemic efficacy, compared with intravenous (IV) adenosine/ATP (FFR 0.82 [0.75-0.87] vs. 0.82 [0.74-0.88], p=0.207). FFR measurements with both agents showed excellent correlation and classification agreement (CA) for FFR ≤0.80 (r=0.941, ICC 0.980, CA 90.8%, kappa=0.814, AUC of nicorandil 0.980, all p<0.001). Only three patients (0.7%) showed changes in classification across the grey zone (0.75-0.80). IC nicorandil produced fewer changes in blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) and showed less chest pain than IV adenosine/ATP (all p<0.001). When comparing ΔFFR according to ΔBP or ΔHR between IV adenosine/ATP and IC nicorandil, there were no correlations, either between ΔFFR and ΔBP (r=-0.114, p=0.091), or between ΔFFR and ΔHR (r=1.000, p=0.151). CONCLUSIONS: Nicorandil IC bolus injection is a simple, safe and effective hyperaemic method for FFR measurement and can be used as a substitute for adenosine.