Literature DB >> 12135943

Hyperemic stenosis resistance index for evaluation of functional coronary lesion severity.

Martijn Meuwissen1, Maria Siebes, Steven A J Chamuleau, Berthe L F van Eck-Smit, Karel T Koch, Robbert J de Winter, Jan G P Tijssen, Jos A E Spaan, Jan J Piek.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Both coronary blood flow velocity reserve (CFVR) and myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFR) are used to evaluate the hemodynamic severity of coronary lesions. However, discordant results between CFVR and FFR have been observed in 25% to 30% of intermediate coronary lesions. An index of stenosis resistance based on a combination of intracoronary pressure and flow velocity may improve the assessment of functional coronary lesion severity. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) was performed in 151 patients with angina to determine reversible perfusion defects within one-week before cardiac catheterization. Coronary pressure and flow velocity was measured distal to 181 single coronary lesions with a mean diameter stenosis of 56% (range: 32% to 85%). Maximum hyperemia was induced by 15 to 20 microg IC adenosine to determine CFVR, FFR, and the hyperemic stenosis resistance index (h-SRv), defined as the ratio of hyperemic stenosis pressure gradient (mean aorta pressure-mean distal pressure) and hyperemic average peak-flow velocity. Receiver-operating-characteristic curves of CFVR, FFR, and h-SRv were calculated to evaluate the predictive value for presence of reversible perfusion defects on SPECT with the use of the area under curve (AUC). The AUC was significantly higher for h-SRv (0.90+/-0.03) compared with those for CFVR (0.80+/-0.04; P=0.024) and FFR (0.82+/-0.03; P=0.018), respectively. Agreement with SPECT was particularly higher (73%) than for CFVR (49%, P=0.022) or FFR (51%, P=0.037) in the group of lesions showing discordant results between CFVR and FFR
CONCLUSION: These results indicate that hyperemic stenosis resistance index is a more powerful predictor of reversible perfusion defects than CFVR or FFR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12135943     DOI: 10.1161/01.cir.0000023041.26199.29

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  38 in total

Review 1.  Coronary physiology assessment in the catheterization laboratory.

Authors:  Felipe Díez-Delhoyo; Enrique Gutiérrez-Ibañes; Gerard Loughlin; Ricardo Sanz-Ruiz; María Eugenia Vázquez-Álvarez; Fernando Sarnago-Cebada; Rocío Angulo-Llanos; Ana Casado-Plasencia; Jaime Elízaga; Francisco Fernández Avilés Diáz
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2015-09-26

Review 2.  Reasons and implications of agreements and disagreements between coronary flow reserve, fractional flow reserve, and myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Manish Motwani; Mahsaw Motlagh; Anuj Gupta; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 3.  Combined functional and anatomical diagnostic endpoints for assessing arteriovenous fistula dysfunction.

Authors:  Ehsan Rajabi-Jaghargh; Rupak K Banerjee
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2015-02-06

4.  Characteristics of the flow velocity-pressure gradient relation in the assessment of stenoses: an in vitro study.

Authors:  K M J Marques; N Westerhof
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.380

5.  Revisiting the Optimal Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Thresholds for Predicting the Physiological Significance of Coronary Artery Disease.

Authors:  Bhavik N Modi; Haseeb Rahman; Thomas Kaier; Matthew Ryan; Rupert Williams; Natalia Briceno; Howard Ellis; Antonis Pavlidis; Simon Redwood; Brian Clapp; Divaka Perera
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 6.546

Review 6.  Intravascular imaging tools in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: comprehensive assessment of anatomy and physiology.

Authors:  Parham Eshtehardi; Jennifer Luke; Michael C McDaniel; Habib Samady
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 4.132

7.  Fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention: does coronary pressure never lie?

Authors:  Tim P van de Hoef; Martijn A van Lavieren; José P S Henriques; Jan J Piek; Bimmer E P M Claessen
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2014-04

8.  Assessment of left anterior descending artery stenosis of intermediate severity by fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, and non-invasive coronary flow reserve.

Authors:  P Meimoun; J Clerc; D Ardourel; U Djou; S Martis; T Botoro; F Elmkies; H Zemir; A Luycx-Bore; J Boulanger
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 2.357

9.  Coronary pressure measurement based decision making for percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Kohichiro Iwasaki; Shozo Kusachi
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rev       Date:  2009-11

Review 10.  Coronary microvascular resistance: methods for its quantification in humans.

Authors:  Paul Knaapen; Paolo G Camici; Koen M Marques; Robin Nijveldt; Jeroen J Bax; Nico Westerhof; Marco J W Götte; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Heinrich R Schelbert; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Albert C van Rossum
Journal:  Basic Res Cardiol       Date:  2009-05-26       Impact factor: 17.165

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.