Comparing invasive hemodynamic responses in adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress in chronic coronary syndromes

Cook, Christopher M., Howard, James P., Ahmad, Yousif, Shun-Shin, Matthew J., Sethi, Amarjit, Clesham, Gerald J., Tang, Kare H., Nijjer, Sukhjinder S., Kelly, Paul A., Davies, John R., Malik, Iqbal S., Kaprielian, Raffi R., Mikhail, Ghada W., Petraco, Ricardo, Warisawa, Takayuki, Al-Janabi, Firas, Karamasis, Grigoris V., Mohdnazri, Shah R., Gamma, Reto A., Stathogiannis, Konstantinos E., de Waard, Guus A., Al-Lamee, Rasha, Keeble, Thomas R., Mayet, Jamil, Sen, Sayan, Francis, Darrel P. and Davies, Justin E. (2021) Comparing invasive hemodynamic responses in adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress in chronic coronary syndromes. International Journal of Cardiology, 342. pp. 7-14. ISSN 1874-1754

Preview	Text Accepted Version Available under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (939kB) | Preview
	Text (Word version) Accepted Version Available under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (1MB)

Abstract

Objectives- Adenosine hyperemia is an integral component of the physiological assessment of obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). The aim of this study was to compare systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamics between intravenous (IV) adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress in patients with CCS and coronary stenosis. Methods- Twenty-three patients (mean age, 60.6 ± 8.1 years) with CCS and single-vessel coronary stenosis underwent cardiac catheterization. Continuous trans-stenotic coronary pressure-flow measurements were performed during: i) IV adenosine hyperemia, and ii) physical exercise using a catheter-table-mounted supine ergometer. Systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamic responses were compared between IV adenosine and exercise stimuli. Results- Mean stenosis diameter was 74.6% ± 10.4. Median (interquartile range) FFR was 0.54 (0.44–0.72). At adenosine hyperemia versus exercise stress, mean aortic pressure (Pa, 91 ± 16 mmHg vs 99 ± 15 mmHg, p < 0.0001), distal coronary pressure (Pd, 58 ± 21 mmHg vs 69 ± 24 mmHg, p < 0.0001), trans-stenotic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa, 0.63 ± 0.18 vs 0.69 ± 0.19, p < 0.0001), microvascular resistance (MR, 2.9 ± 2.2 mmHg.cm−1.sec−1 vs 4.2 ± 1.7 mmHg.cm−1.sec−1, p = 0.001), heart rate (HR, 80 ± 15 bpm vs 85 ± 21 bpm, p = 0.02) and rate-pressure product (RPP, 7522 ± 2335 vs 9077 ± 3200, p = 0.0001) were all lower. Conversely, coronary flow velocity (APV, 23.7 ± 9.5 cm/s vs 18.5 ± 6.8 cm/s, p = 0.02) was higher. Additionally, temporal changes in Pa, Pd, Pd/Pa, MR, HR, RPP and APV during IV adenosine hyperemia versus exercise were all significantly different (p < 0.05 for all). Conclusions- In patients with CCS and coronary stenosis, invasive hemodynamic responses differed markedly between IV adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress. These differences were observed across systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamics.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Keywords:	Coronary physiology, Exercise physiology, Chronic coronary syndromes, Coronary artery disease
Faculty:	Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine & Social Care
Depositing User:	Lisa Blanshard
Date Deposited:	26 Oct 2021 12:16
Last Modified:	03 Aug 2022 01:02
URI:	https://arro.anglia.ac.uk/id/eprint/707047

Actions (login required)

Edit Item