Pooled comparison of regadenoson versus adenosine for measuring fractional flow reserve and coronary flow in the catheterization laboratory.

Abstract Background Adenosine is the gold standard for augmenting coronary flow during fractional flow reserve (FFR) testing of intermediate coronary stenoses. However, intravenous infusion is time-consuming and intracoronary injection is subject to variability. Regadenoson is a newer adenosine alternative administered as a single intravenous bolus during nuclear stress testing, but its efficacy and safety during FFR testing have been evaluated only in small, single-center studies. Methods We pooled data from 5 academic hospitals, in which patients undergoing clinically-indicated FFR prospectively underwent comparison of intravenous adenosine infusion (140–175 mcg/kg/min) versus regadenoson bolus (400 mcg). Hemodynamics and symptoms with adenosine were recorded until maximal hyperemia occurred, and after returning to baseline hemodynamics, regadenoson was administered and monitoring was repeated. In a subset of patients with coronary flow data, average peak velocity (APV) at the distal flow sensor was recorded. Results Of 149 patients enrolled, mean age was 59 ± 9 years, 76% were male, and 54% underwent testing of the left anterior descending artery. Mean adenosine-FFR and regadenoson-FFR were identical (0.82 ± 0.10) with excellent correlation of individual values ( r  = 0.96, p p  = 0.81). Conclusions Regadenoson single-bolus administration has comparable FFR, symptoms, and coronary flow augmentation when compared with standard intravenous adenosine infusion. With its greater ease of administration, regadenoson may be a more “user-friendly” option for invasive ischemic testing.