Comparison of intracoronary versus intravenous administration of adenosine for measurement of coronary fractional flow reserve.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) constitutes the current gold standard to evaluate the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses. Limited data validate the intracoronary application of adenosine against standard intravenous infusion. We systematically compared FFR measurements during intracoronary and intravenous application of adenosine about agreement and reproducibility. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 114 patients with an intermediate degree of stenosis in coronary angiography. Two FFR measurements were performed during intracoronary bolus injection (40 µg for the right and 80 µg for the left coronary artery, FFRic), and 2 FFR measurements during continuous intravenous infusion of adenosine (140 µg/kg per minute, FFRiv). FFR value, the time to reach FFR and patient discomfort (on a subjective scale from 0 for no symptoms to 5 for maximal discomfort) were recorded for each measurement. Mean time to FFR was 100 ± 27 s for continuous intravenous infusion versus 23 ± 14 s for intracoronary bolus administration of adenosine (P < 0.001). Reported discomfort after intracoronary application was significantly lower compared with intravenous adenosine (subjective scale > 0 in 35.1% versus 87.7% of the patients; P < 0.001). Correlation between FFRiv and FFRic was extremely close (r = 0.99; P < 0.001) with no systematic bias in Bland-Altman analysis (bias 0.002 [confidence interval, -0.001 to 0.005]) and low intermethod variability (1.56%). Intramethod variability was not different between intravenous and intracoronary administration (1.47% versus 1.33%; P=0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Intracoronary bolus injection of adenosine (40 µg for the right and 80 µg for the left coronary artery) yields identical FFR results compared with intravenous infusion (140 µg/kg per minute), while requiring less time and offering superior patient comfort.

Automated attenuation-based selection of tube voltage and tube current for coronary CT angiography: reduction of radiation exposure versus a BMI-based strategy with an expert investigator.

BACKGROUND: Recently developed automated algorithms use the topogram and the corresponding attenuation information before coronary CT angiography (CTA) to allow for an individualized anatomic-based selection of tube current (mAs) and voltage (kV). OBJECTIVES: The value of these algorithms in reducing the associated radiation exposure was evaluated. METHODS: One hundred patients underwent coronary CTA with dual-source CT with prospectively electrocardiogram-triggered axial data acquisition. In all patients, tube parameters (current and voltage) were suggested by both an experienced investigator according to the patient's body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight divided by height squared; kg/m(2)) and by an automated software according to attenuation values of the initial topogram. The first 50 consecutive patients (group 1) underwent coronary CTA with dual-source CT with tube parameters suggested by the experienced investigator (BMI-based tube parameters), whereas in another 50 consecutive patients (group 2) CT data acquisition was performed with tube settings of the automated software. Subsequently, subjective image quality (4-point rating score from 0 = nondiagnostic to 3 = excellent image quality), image noise (SD of CT number within the aortic root), as well as signal- and contrast-to-noise ratios and mean effective radiation doses, were compared between both groups. RESULTS: Both groups showed comparable image quality parameters (group 1 vs 2: noise, 28.1 ± 6.0 HU vs 29.9 ± 5.4 HU, P = .12; signal-to-noise ratio, 16.4 ± 3.9 vs 16.8 ± 4.1, P = .54; contrast-to-noise ratio, 18.6 ± 4.1 vs 19.2 ± 4.3, P = .49; 4-point rating score, 2.8 ± 0.3 vs 2.9 ± 0.3, P = .81). Tube voltage, current, and mean effective radiation dose for groups 1 and 2 were 111 ± 12 kV and 108 ± 12 kV (P = .18), 361 ± 32 mAs and 320 ± 48 mAs (P < .001), and 2.3 mSv (25th; 75th percentile, 1.5; 2.8 mSv) and 1.4 mSv (25th; 75th percentile, 1.1; 1.9 mSv) (P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Automated attenuation-based selections of individualized tube parameters are superior to BMI-based selections with expert oversight and show a potential for reduction of radiation exposure in coronary CTA, and image quality is maintained.