Intravenous regadenoson versus intracoronary adenosine for fractional flow reserve measurement

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction and objectives: Regadenoson, a selective agonist of the A2a receptors of adenosine, has been proposed as an alternative for the measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR). The goal of our study was to assess the utility of regadenoson compared to the use of intracoronary adenosine. Methods: Forty-one intermediate coronary lesions (30%-70%), in which functional assessment with pressure wire was indicated, were included both prospective and consecutively. Each patient was sequentially administered intracoronary adenosine and intravenous regadenoson and hemodynamic data while the adverse effects were recorded with hyperemia induced by both drugs. The differences seen in the final FFR were analyzed using the linear regression model and the clinically relevant discrepancies were identified assuming 0.80 as the cut-off point. Results: The mean of the FFR was significantly lower with regadenoson compared to adenosine (0.838 ± 0.072 vs 0.852 ± 0.073, P = .002) and in 4 cases (9.8%) clinically relevant differences were found. The regression analysis showed a strong linear correlation between the individual values (r = 0.925, P < .001). Both adenosine and regadenoson significantly reduced mean arterial blood pressure and only regadenoson significantly increased baseline heart rate. In 2 cases (4.9%) asystole was recorded > 3 seconds after the administration of adenosine and no complications were observed with regadenoson. Conclusions: The administration of regadenoson through an intravenous single bolus has shown a significant reduction in the value of FFR compared to the administration of intracoronary adenosine boluses and the observed differences may be relevant in the clinical decision-making process.

Keywords

• Adenosine
• Regadenoson
• Fractional flow reserve