Comparison of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine-induced maximal hyperemia for fractional flow reserve measurement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective We sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature comparing fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements after administration of adenosine using intracoronary (IC) bolus versus standard continuous intravenous (IV) infusion. Background FFR is considered the gold standard for invasive assessment of coronary lesions of intermediate severity. IV adenosine is recommended to induce hyperemia; however, IC adenosine is widely used for convenience. The difference between IV and IC administration in lesions assessment is not well studied. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE and relevant databases for studies comparing IV with IC adenosine administration for FFR measurement. We reviewed data pertaining to adenosine doses, side effects, and FFR values. Results Eight studies addressing the primary question were identified. Dose of IC adenosine varied between 36 and 600 mu g. Compared to IV adenosine infusion, the sensitivity of IC administration is 0.805 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.664-0.896; p < .001), specificity is 0.965 (95% CI: 0.932-0.983; p < .001), positive likelihood ratio is 24.218 (95% CI: 12,263-47.830; p < .001), negative likelihood ratio is 0.117 (95% CI: 0.033-0.411; p < .01), and diagnostic odds ratio is 274.225 [95% CI: 92.731-810.946; p < .001]. Overall, hemodynamic side effects and symptoms were reported more frequently with IV adenosine. Conclusions The available literature suggests that IC adenosine is well tolerated and may provide equivalent diagnostic accuracy compared to IV administration. However, variability in dosing regimens does not allow definitive conclusions regarding noninferiority of IC approach compared to IV administration.