Comparison of fractional flow reserve measurements using intracoronary adenosine versus intracoronary sodium nitroprusside infusions in moderately stenotic coronary artery lesions

Morteza Safi, Mohammad Hasan Namazi, Esfandiar Fooladi, Hossein Vakili, Saeed Alipour Parsa, Isa Khaheshi, Mohammad Amin Abbasi, Mohammad R Movahed

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Scopus citations


Introduction The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of intracoronary (IC) sodium nitroprusside infusion in comparison to IC adenosine for fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement in moderately diseased coronary artery lesions for functional assessment. Methods During a nine month period, a consecutive of 98 patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease with moderate stenosis found during angiography (40% to 70% stenosis), were enrolled in this study. Hyperemia was induced by bolus doses of IC adenosine followed by sodium nitroprusside for FFR measurement. Results Both IC adenosine and IC sodium nitroprusside induced similar and significant reduction in FFR. There was no statistically difference in FFR values between adenosine vs sodium nitroprusside infusions (mean FFR 84.3 ± 6.3 vs 85.7 ± 6.2, p = 0.1) respectively. Furthermore, comparing different FFR cut-off points between the groups (FFR < 0.75, 0.75–0.8 and > 0.8) showed no significant differences (p value = 0.7). Conclusion An IC bolus of sodium nitroprusside (0.6 μg/kg) infusion induces a similar degree of hyperemia to IC bolus of 100–300 μg of adenosine. Therefore, IC sodium nitroprusside could be considered as an alternative drug to adenosine for FFR measurement with lower side effect profile.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)441-443
Number of pages3
JournalCardiovascular Revascularization Medicine
Issue number7
StatePublished - Oct 1 2016



  • Fractional flow reserve
  • Functional study
  • Ischemia evaluation
  • Nitroprusside

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this