ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Differential Effects of Intravenous Versus Intracoronary Adenosine on Non-Culprit Lesion Assessment Following Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the validity of initial non-culprit fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements remains controversial because of microvascular dysfunction and potential diminished adenosine response. Because the hyperemic effects of adenosine have been predominantly studied in stable patients, and high-dose intracoronary administration may produce stronger hyperemia than intravenous delivery, we compared non-culprit FFR between the acute and stabilized phases of ACS using both administration routes.
methodsPatients presenting with ACS underwent repeated physiological assessment of relevant non-culprit lesions using both intracoronary adenosine boluses (≥100 μg) and intravenous adenosine (140 μg/kg/min) during index hospitalization and at 12-week follow-up.
resultsA total of 53 patients (mean age 65.1±9.3 years, 7 [13.2%] women) were included in the current analysis. A significant interaction between the route of adenosine administration and change in FFR was found (
conclusionsDuring ACS, adequate intracoronary adenosine boluses elicit a stronger hyperemic response than intravenous adenosine administration, yielding lower initial FFR values that remain stable over time. Further research is warranted to investigate the dose-dependent hyperemic effects of intravenous adenosine during the acute phase of ACS.
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.