Trial reportBMC cardiovascular disorders2017
Assessment of increasing intravenous adenosine dose in fractional flow reserve.
Trial report in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Increased dose of adenosine and the relationship between the resting full-cycle ratio and fractional flow reserve.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2025Article
- Intracoronary nicorandil induced hyperemia for physiological assessments in the coronary artery lesions.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- A comparison of standard and high dose adenosine protocols in routine vasodilator stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance: dosage affects hyperaemic myocardial blood flow in patients with severe left ventricular systolic impairment.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2021Article
- Quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion mapping to assess hyperaemic response to adenosine stress.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2021Article
- Instantaneous wave-free ratio-guided paclitaxel-coated balloon treatment for de novo coronary lesions.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffects of increased adenosine dose in the assessment of fractional flow reserve (FFR) were studied in relation to FFR results, hemodynamic effects and patient discomfort. FFR require maximal hyperemia mediated by adenosine. Standard dose is 140 μg/kg/min administrated intravenously. Higher doses are commonly used in clinical practice, but an extensive comparison between standard intravenous dose and a high dose (220 μg/kg/min) has previously not been performed.
methodsSeventy-five patients undergoing FFR received standard dose adenosine, followed by high dose adenosine. FFR, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were analyzed. Patient discomfort measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was assessed.
resultsNo significant difference was found between the doses in FFR value (0.85 [0.79-0.90] vs 0.85 [0.79-0.89], p = 0.24). The two doses correlated well irrespective of lesion severity (r = 0.86, slope = 0.89, p = <0.001). There were no differences in MAP or HR. Patient discomfort was more pronounced using high dose adenosine (8.0 [5.0-9.0]) versus standard dose (5.0 [2.0-7.0]), p = <0.001.
conclusionsIncreased dose adenosine does not improve hyperemia and is associated with increased patient discomfort. Our findings do not support the use of high dose adenosine.
trial registrationRetrospective Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14618196 . Registered 15 December 2016.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.