Differences in coronary microcirculation measurements during regadenoson vs. adenosine – induced hyperemia
, 3, 3, 14, 5, 14, 14
Abstract
Background: Little is known about the similarity of microcirculation assessment outcomes performed with regadenoson and adenosine. The aim of the current study was to compare coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) assessment using adenosine and regadenoson, and to evaluate predictors regarding the size of differences.
Methods: 44 patients were enrolled and diagnosed between 2021 and 2023. Fractional flow reserve (FFR), CFR and IMR were measured twice in the circumflex (Cx) (n = 8) or left anterior descending (LAD) (n = 36) artery: once with continuous infusion of adenosine (Adenocor 140 µg/kg/min) and 10 minutes later with regadenoson (Rapiscan 400 µg i.v.).
Results: Averaged results were quantified with adenosine and regadenoson for FFR (0.81 [0.75 ÷ 0.89] vs. 0.80 [0.73 ÷ 0.88]), CFR (3.84 [1.67 ÷ 4.08] vs. 3.97 [1.78 ÷ 4.32]) and IMR (20.01 [11 ÷ 24.5] vs. 20.25 [10.75 ÷ 23]), respectively. None of the differences were statistically significant. Among the significant (p < 0.05) predictors of greater ΔCFR, the following can be noted: prior percutaneous transluminal angioplasty/carotid artery stenting (β = 2.35), oral anticoagulant usage (β = 0.89), and prior stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) (β = 1.09), with the latter being also confirmed for greater ΔIMR (β = 8.89). Moreover, patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II/III, as compared to those with NYHA class I, were more likely to have greater ΔIMR (β = 11.89).
Conclusions: Regadenoson may be a feasible alternative to adenosine in coronary microcirculation assessment, as it produces similar outcomes. Selected factors were found to be predictors of greater differences in IMR, CFR and FFR values according to the agent used for coronary hyperemia.
Keywords: adenosinecoronary flow reservefractional flow reserveindex of microcirculation resistanceregadenoson
References
- Díez-Delhoyo F, Gutiérrez-Ibañes E, Loughlin G, et al. Coronary physiology assessment in the catheterization laboratory. World J Cardiol. 2015; 7(9): 525–538.
- Radhakrishnan A, Pickup LC, Price AM, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction is associated with degree of anaemia in end-stage renal disease. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2021; 21(1): 211.
- De Bruyne B, Hersbach F, Pijls NH, et al. Abnormal epicardial coronary resistance in patients with diffuse atherosclerosis but "Normal" coronary angiography. Circulation. 2001; 104(20): 2401–2406.
- McGeoch R, Watkins S, Berry C, et al. The index of microcirculatory resistance measured acutely predicts the extent and severity of myocardial infarction in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 3(7): 715–722.
- Ford TJ, Stanley B, Sidik N, et al. 1-Year Outcomes of Angina Management Guided by Invasive Coronary Function Testing (CorMicA). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020; 13(1): 33–45.
- Lee JM, Jung JH, Hwang D, et al. Coronary Flow Reserve and Microcirculatory Resistance in Patients With Intermediate Coronary Stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 67(10): 1158–1169.
- Bozbas SS, Eroglu S, Ozyurek BA, et al. Coronary flow reserve is impaired in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Ann Thorac Med. 2017; 12(4): 272–277.
- Kelshiker MA, Seligman H, Howard JP, et al. Coronary Flow Outcomes Reviewing Committee. Coronary flow reserve and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2022; 43(16): 1582–1593.
- Gill GS, Gadre A, Kanmanthareddy A. Comparative efficacy and safety of adenosine and regadenoson for assessment of fractional flow reserve: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Cardiol. 2022; 14(5): 319–328.
- Nair PK, Marroquin OC, Mulukutla SR, et al. Clinical utility of regadenoson for assessing fractional flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4(10): 1085–1092.
- Edward JA, Lee JH, White CJ, et al. Intravenous regadenoson with aminophylline reversal is safe and equivalent to intravenous adenosine infusion for fractional flow reserve measurements. Clin Cardiol. 2018; 41(10): 1348–1352.
- Stolker JM, Lim MJ, Shavelle DM, et al. Pooled comparison of regadenoson versus adenosine for measuring fractional flow reserve and coronary flow in the catheterization laboratory. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2015; 16(5): 266–271.
- Ghimire G, Hage FG, Heo J, et al. Regadenoson: a focused update. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013; 20(2): 284–288.
- Lachmann V, Heimann M, Jung C, et al. Feasibility, safety and effectiveness in measuring microvascular resistance with regadenoson. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2019; 71(3): 299–310.
- Ntalianis A, Trana C, Muller O, et al. Effective radiation dose, time, and contrast medium to measure fractional flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 3(8): 821–827.
- Pijls NHJ, van Nunen LX. Fractional flow reserve, maximum hyperemia, adenosine, and regadenoson. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2015; 16(5): 263–265.
- van Nunen LX, Lenders GD, Schampaert S, et al. Single bolus intravenous regadenoson injection versus central venous infusion of adenosine for maximum coronary hyperaemia in fractional flow reserve measurement. EuroIntervention. 2015; 11(8): 905–913.
- Lim WH, Koo BK, Nam CW, et al. Variability of fractional flow reserve according to the methods of hyperemia induction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 85(6): 970–976.
- Arumugham P, Figueredo VM, Patel PB, et al. Comparison of intravenous adenosine and intravenous regadenoson for the measurement of pressure-derived coronary fractional flow reserve. EuroIntervention. 2013; 8(10): 1166–1171.
- Prasad A, Zareh M, Doherty R, et al. Use of regadenoson for measurement of fractional flow reserve. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 83(3): 369–374.
