Individual Lesion-Level Meta-Analysis Comparing Various Doses of Intracoronary Bolus Injection of Adenosine With Intravenous Administration of Adenosine for Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous infusion of adenosine is considered standard practice for fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment but is associated with adverse side-effects and is time-consuming. Intracoronary bolus injection of adenosine is better tolerated by patients, cheaper, and less time-consuming. However, current literature remains fragmented and modestly sized regarding the equivalence of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine. We aim to investigate the relationship between intracoronary adenosine and intravenous adenosine to determine FFR. METHODS: We performed a lesion-level meta-analysis to compare intracoronary adenosine with intravenous adenosine (140 µg/kg per minute) for FFR assessment. The search was conducted in accordance to the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. Lesion-level data were obtained by contacting the respective authors or by digitization of scatterplots using custom-made software. Intracoronary adenosine dose was defined as; low: <40 µg, intermediate: 40 to 99 µg, and high: ≥100 µg. RESULTS: We collected 1972 FFR measurements (1413 lesions) comparing intracoronary with intravenous adenosine from 16 studies. There was a strong correlation (correlation coefficient =0.915; P<0.001) between intracoronary-FFR and intravenous-FFR. Mean FFR was 0.81±0.11 for intracoronary adenosine and 0.81±0.11 for intravenous adenosine (P<0.001). We documented a nonclinically relevant mean difference of 0.006 (limits of agreement: -0.066 to 0.078) between the methods. When stratified by the intracoronary adenosine dose, mean differences between intracoronary and intravenous-FFR amounted to 0.004, 0.011, or 0.000 FFR units for low-dose, intermediate-dose, and high-dose intracoronary adenosine, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present study documents clinically irrelevant differences in FFR values obtained with intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine. Intracoronary adenosine hence confers a practical and patient-friendly alternative for intravenous adenosine for FFR assessment.

OCT-assessment of scaffold resorption: Analysis of strut intensity by a new resorption index for poly-l-lactic acid bioresorbable vascular scaffolds.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze individual differences in resorption of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) through optical coherence tomography (OCT) analysis and to identify factors potentially influencing the resorption process. METHODS: Between April 2016 and July 2017 clinically driven invasive coronary angiography and OCT examinations were performed in 36 patients who had previously been treated with a total of 48 BRS (ABSORB BVS, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA). For each scaffold, a new BRS-RESORB-INDEX (BRI) was calculated. RESULTS: The mean time interval since implantation was 789 ± 321 days. In OCT, BRS struts remained detectable in all 48 BRS. Normalized light intensity as a marker for the resorption of BRS struts increased with time in a linear fashion (Spearman Rho: p < .001, correlation coefficient = .90; R2 [linear] = .91). Multivariable analysis identified diabetes (BRI of patients with diabetes vs. patients without diabetes: 0.34 ± 0.13 vs. 0.58 ± 0.22; p = .002) and presence of Peri-strut low intensity areas (PSLIA, BRI of 10 patients with PSLIA vs. 26 patients without PSLIA: 0.44 ± 0.21 vs. 0.61 ± 18; p = .027) as independent predictors for a prolonged BRS resorption, whereas the resorption rate in ACS patients (STEMI, NSTEMI, and unstable angina; n = 13) was significantly higher as compared to patients without ACS (0.62 ± 0.17 vs. 0.43 ± 0.24; p = .012). CONCLUSION: In humans, BRS resorption rate is significantly influenced by numerous factors. Our data suggest that diabetes and PSLIA are associated with a prolonged resorption process, whereas in ACS patients, BRS resorption appears to be significantly faster.

Diagnostic value of maximum intensity projections versus source images for assessment of contrast-enhanced three-dimensional breath-hold magnetic resonance coronary angiography.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We compared maximum intensity projections (MIP) versus original source images (SI) in respect to detection of coronary artery stenoses by means of magnetic resonance (MR) coronary angiography. METHODS: MR coronary angiography was performed on 61 patients. MIP and SI were independently evaluated as to presence of significant stenoses in the proximal and midcoronary segments and compared with x-ray angiography. RESULTS: A total of 315 of 427 (74%) coronary artery segments could be evaluated in MIP and 328 of 427 (77%) in SI. In segments able to be evaluated, MIP images demonstrated 84% (54/64) sensitivity and 87% (219/251) specificity, whereas SI images showed 85% (58/68) sensitivity and 90% (235/260) specificity. Overall accuracy was 87% (273/310) for MIP and 89% (293/328) for SI. There was no statistically significant difference between both modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The MIP reconstructions showed comparable accuracy to unprocessed SI. However, MIP postprocessing is compromised by a higher number of images that were unable to be evaluated due to overlap of coronary arteries with adjacent cardiac structures.