Data from: Continuum of vasodilator stress from rest to contrast medium to adenosine hyperemia for fractional flow reserve assessment

  • Nils P Johnson (Creator)
  • Allen Jeremias (Creator)
  • Frederik M Zimmermann (Creator)
  • Julien Adjedj (Creator)
  • Nils Witt (Creator)
  • Barry Hennigan (Creator)
  • Bon Kwon Koo (Creator)
  • Akiko Maehara (Creator)
  • Mitsuaki Matsumura (Creator)
  • Emanuele Barbato (Creator)
  • Giovanni Esposito (Creator)
  • Bruno Trimarco (Creator)
  • Gilles Rioufol (Creator)
  • Seung-Jung Park (Creator)
  • Hyoung-Mo Yang (Creator)
  • Sergio B. Baptista (Creator)
  • George S. Chrysant (Creator)
  • Antonio Maria Leone (Creator)
  • Colin Berry (Creator)
  • Bernard De Bruyne (Creator)
  • K. Lance Gould (Creator)
  • Richard L. Kirkeeide (Creator)
  • Keith G. Oldroyd (Creator)
  • Nico H J Pijls (Creator)
  • William F Fearon (Creator)

Dataset

Description

OBJECTIVES: We compared the diagnostic performance with adenosine-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) #0.8 of contrast-based FFR (cFFR), resting distal pressure (Pd)/aortic pressure (Pa), and the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). BACKGROUND: FFR objectively identifies lesions that benefit from medical therapy versus revascularization. However, FFR requires maximal vasodilation, usually achieved with adenosine. Radiographic contrast injection causes submaximal coronary hyperemia. Therefore, intracoronary contrast could provide an easy and inexpensive tool for predicting FFR. METHODS: We recruited patients undergoing routine FFR assessment and made paired, repeated measurements of all physiology metrics (Pd/Pa, iFR, cFFR, and FFR). Contrast medium and dose were per local practice, as was the dose of intracoronary adenosine. Operators were encouraged to perform both intracoronary and intravenous adenosine assessments and a final drift check to assess wire calibration. A central core lab analyzed blinded pressure tracings in a standardized fashion. RESULTS: A total of 763 subjects were enrolled from 12 international centers. Contrast volume was 8 +- 2 ml per measurement, and 8 different contrast media were used. Repeated measurements of each metric showed a bias
Dati resi disponibili2 feb 2017
EditoreDryad

Cita questo