Comparison of sodium nitroprusside and adenosine for fractional flow reserve assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

ABSTRACTBackground: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has become a useful tool in the assessment of physiological significance of coronary artery stenosis (CAS), and Adenosine (ADE) is associated with a high incidence of transient side effects. Sodium nitroprusside (NPS) has been proposed as an alternative vasodilator agent. A meta-analysis of studies comparing ADE and NPS for FFR assessment in the same coronary lesions was performed.Methods: Authors searched for articles comparing NPS and ADE for FFR assessment in intermediate coronary lesions published through January 2018. The following keywords were used: ‘fractional flow reserve’ AND ‘nitroprusside’. Data were summarized using weighted mean differences for paired data.Results: Seven studies were identified comprising 342 patients and 401 lesions. Four studies evaluated intravenous ADE and 3 studies intracoronary ADE administration. Weighted means FFR values obtained with ADE and NPS were 0.8411 and 0.8445, respectively (weighted mean difference: 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.01 to 0.01, p = 0,548). Adverse events were significantly reduced with IC NPS (RR = 0.08, 95%CI 0.02–0.30, P < 0.0001).Conclusions: NPS produces similar FFR measurements compared to ADE with a significant reduction in adverse effects. These results may support its use as a suitable alternative to ADE for FFR assessment.