AIMS: Evaluation of angiographical and intracoronary Doppler-derived parameters of coronary stenosis severity. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 225 patients with one-vessel disease were studied before PTCA and at 6 months follow-up. Exercise electrocardiography was performed to document presence (n = 157) or absence (n = 138) of an ST segment shift (> or =0.1 mV). Intracoronary blood flow velocity analysis was performed to determine the proximal/distal flow velocity ratio, the distal diastolic/systolic flow velocity ratio and coronary flow velocity reserve. Receiver operator characteristic curves were calculated to assess the predictive value of these variables compared with the exercise test. The distal coronary flow velocity reserve demonstrated the best linear correlation for both percentage diameter stenosis and minimum lumen diameter (r = 0.67 and r = 0.66; P<0.01), compared to the diastolic/systolic flow velocity ratio (r = 0.19 and r = 0.14; P<0.01) and the proximal/distal flow velocity ratio (r = 0.03 and r = 0.07; not significant). The areas under the curve were 0. 84+/-0.02; 0.82+/-0.03 and 0.83+/-0.03 for diameter stenosis, minimum lumen diameter and coronary flow velocity reserve, respectively. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the percentage diameter stenosis or minimum lumen diameter and coronary flow velocity reserve were independent predictors for the result of stress testing. CONCLUSIONS: The distal coronary flow velocity reserve is the best intracoronary Doppler parameter for evaluation of coronary narrowings. Angiographical estimates of coronary lesion severity and distal coronary flow velocity reserve are good and independent predictors for the assessment of functional severity of coronary stenosis, emphasizing the complementary role of these parameters for clinical decision making. Copyright 2000 The European Society of Cardiology.
AIMS: Evaluation of angiographical and intracoronary Doppler-derived parameters of coronary stenosis severity. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 225 patients with one-vessel disease were studied before PTCA and at 6 months follow-up. Exercise electrocardiography was performed to document presence (n = 157) or absence (n = 138) of an ST segment shift (> or =0.1 mV). Intracoronary blood flow velocity analysis was performed to determine the proximal/distal flow velocity ratio, the distal diastolic/systolic flow velocity ratio and coronary flow velocity reserve. Receiver operator characteristic curves were calculated to assess the predictive value of these variables compared with the exercise test. The distal coronary flow velocity reserve demonstrated the best linear correlation for both percentage diameter stenosis and minimum lumen diameter (r = 0.67 and r = 0.66; P<0.01), compared to the diastolic/systolic flow velocity ratio (r = 0.19 and r = 0.14; P<0.01) and the proximal/distal flow velocity ratio (r = 0.03 and r = 0.07; not significant). The areas under the curve were 0. 84+/-0.02; 0.82+/-0.03 and 0.83+/-0.03 for diameter stenosis, minimum lumen diameter and coronary flow velocity reserve, respectively. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the percentage diameter stenosis or minimum lumen diameter and coronary flow velocity reserve were independent predictors for the result of stress testing. CONCLUSIONS: The distal coronary flow velocity reserve is the best intracoronary Doppler parameter for evaluation of coronary narrowings. Angiographical estimates of coronary lesion severity and distal coronary flow velocity reserve are good and independent predictors for the assessment of functional severity of coronary stenosis, emphasizing the complementary role of these parameters for clinical decision making. Copyright 2000 The European Society of Cardiology.
Authors: Liesbeth P Salm; Jeroen J Bax; J Wouter Jukema; Susan E Langerak; Hubert W Vliegen; Paul Steendijk; Hildo J Lamb; Albert de Roos; Ernst E van der Wall Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Nic Smith; Adelaide de Vecchi; Matthew McCormick; David Nordsletten; Oscar Camara; Alejandro F Frangi; Hervé Delingette; Maxime Sermesant; Jatin Relan; Nicholas Ayache; Martin W Krueger; Walther H W Schulze; Rod Hose; Israel Valverde; Philipp Beerbaum; Cristina Staicu; Maria Siebes; Jos Spaan; Peter Hunter; Juergen Weese; Helko Lehmann; Dominique Chapelle; Reza Rezavi Journal: Interface Focus Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 3.906
Authors: Ozan M Demir; Coen K M Boerhout; Guus A de Waard; Tim P van de Hoef; Niket Patel; Marcel A M Beijk; Rupert Williams; Haseeb Rahman; Henk Everaars; Rajesh K Kharbanda; Paul Knaapen; Niels van Royen; Jan J Piek; Divaka Perera Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2022-05-23 Impact factor: 11.075
Authors: Steven A J Chamuleau; Berthe L F van Eck-Smit; Martijn Meuwissen; Jan J Piek Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Tim P van de Hoef; Martijn Meuwissen; Javier Escaned; Justin E Davies; Maria Siebes; Jos A E Spaan; Jan J Piek Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Sukhjinder S Nijjer; Ricardo Petraco; Tim P van de Hoef; Sayan Sen; Martijn A van Lavieren; Rodney A Foale; Martijn Meuwissen; Christopher Broyd; Mauro Echavarria-Pinto; Rasha Al-Lamee; Nicolas Foin; Amarjit Sethi; Iqbal S Malik; Ghada W Mikhail; Alun D Hughes; Jamil Mayet; Darrel P Francis; Carlo Di Mario; Javier Escaned; Jan J Piek; Justin E Davies Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Guus A de Waard; Christopher J Broyd; Christopher M Cook; Nina W van der Hoeven; Ricardo Petraco; Sukhjinder S Nijjer; Tim P van de Hoef; Mauro Echavarria-Pinto; Martijn Meuwissen; Sayan Sen; Paul Knaapen; Javier Escaned; Jan J Piek; Niels van Royen; Justin E Davies Journal: Open Heart Date: 2019-03-01