Meta-Analysis of Head-to-Head Comparison of Intracoronary Versus Intravenous Adenosine for the Assessment of Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Intravenous (IV) infusion of adenosine represents the gold standard for measuring fractional flow reserve (FFR). However, IV adenosine is more expensive and time-consuming compared with intracoronary (IC) boluses of adenosine. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies comparing IC with IV adenosine for FFR assessment in the same coronary lesions. We searched for studies comparing IC with IV adenosine and reporting absolute FFR values or rate of abnormal FFR for both routes. Prespecified subgroup analysis was performed to appraise studies using low-dose (<100μg) or high-dose IC adenosine (≥100μg). We retrieved 11 studies amounting to 587 patients and 621 lesions. Six studies evaluated low-dose IC boluses (15 to 80μg) and 5 studies high-dose boluses (120 to 600μg). Absolute FFR values were slightly, yet significantly lower with IV adenosine compared with IC adenosine (mean difference 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00 to 0.03, p= 0.02). This difference, however, did not translate into a significant difference in the rate of abnormal FFR between IC and IV adenosine (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.13, p= 0.57); moreover, no statistically significant difference was observed between low-dose and high-dose IC adenosine subgroups. Adverse events were less frequent with IC adenosine compared with IV adenosine (risk ratio 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.43, p <0.001). In conclusion, IC administration of adenosine, although inducing a slightly lower amount of hyperemia compared with IV infusion of adenosine, yields a similar diagnostic accuracy in identifyinghemodynamically significant coronary stenosis and is better tolerated by the patients.