Literature DB >> 2137151

Coronary flow reserve as a physiologic measure of stenosis severity.

K L Gould1, R L Kirkeeide, M Buchi.   

Abstract

PART I: Coronary flow reserve indicates functional stenosis severity, but may be altered by physiologic conditions unrelated to stenosis geometry. To assess the effects of changing physiologic conditions on coronary flow reserve, aortic pressure and heart rate-blood pressure (rate-pressure) product were altered by phenylephrine and nitroprusside in 11 dogs. There was a total of 366 measurements, 26 without and 340 with acute stenoses of the left circumflex artery by a calibrated stenoser, providing percent area stenosis with flow reserve measured by flow meter after the administration of intracoronary adenosine. Absolute coronary flow reserve (maximal flow/rest flow) with no stenosis was 5.9 +/- 1.5 (1 SD) at control study, 7.0 +/- 2.2 after phenylephrine and 4.6 +/- 2.0 after nitroprusside, ranging from 2.0 to 12.1 depending on aortic pressure and rate-pressure product. However, relative coronary flow reserve (maximal flow with stenosis/normal maximal flow without stenosis) was independent of aortic pressure and rate-pressure product. Over the range of aortic pressures and rate-pressure products, the size of 1 SD expressed as a percent of mean absolute coronary flow reserve was +/- 43% without stenosis, and for each category of stenosis severity from 0 to 100% narrowing, it averaged +/- 45% compared with +/- 17% for relative coronary flow reserve. For example, for a 65% stenosis, absolute flow reserve was 5.2 +/- 1.7 (+/- 33% variation), whereas relative flow reserve was 0.9 +/- 0.09 (+/- 10% variation), where 1.0 is normal. Therefore, absolute coronary flow reserve by flow meter was highly variable for fixed stenoses depending on aortic pressure and rate-pressure product, whereas relative flow reserve more accurately and specifically described stenosis severity independent of physiologic conditions. Together, absolute and relative coronary flow reserve provide a more complete description of physiologic stenosis severity than either does alone. PART II: Coronary flow reserve directly measured by a flow meter is altered not only by stenosis, but also by physiologic variables. Stenosis flow reserve is derived from length, percent stenosis, absolute diameters and shape by quantitative coronary arteriography using standardized physiologic conditions. To study the relative merits of absolute coronary flow reserve measured by flow meter and stenosis flow reserve determined by quantitative coronary arteriography for assessing stenosis severity, aortic pressure and rate-pressure product were altered by phenylephrine and nitroprusside in 11 dogs, with 366 stenoses of the left circumflex artery by a calibrated stenoser providing percent area stenosis as described in Part I.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2137151     DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(10)80078-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  77 in total

1.  Functional assessment of coronary artery stenosis by doppler derived absolute and relative coronary blood flow velocity reserve in comparison with (99m)Tc MIBI SPECT.

Authors:  H J Verberne; J J Piek; R A van Liebergen; K T Koch; J M Schroeder-Tanka; E A van Royen
Journal:  Heart       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.994

2.  3D assessment of myocardial perfusion parameter combined with 3D reconstructed coronary artery tree from digital coronary angiograms.

Authors:  T H Schindler; N Magosaki; M Jeserich; E Nitzsche; U Oser; T Abdollahnia; M Nageleisen; M Zehender; H Just; U Solzbach
Journal:  Int J Card Imaging       Date:  2000-02

3.  Assessment of internal mammary artery and saphenous vein graft patency and flow reserve using transthoracic Doppler echocardiography.

Authors:  F Chirillo; A Bruni; G Balestra; C Cavallini; Z Olivari; J D Thomas; P Stritoni
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 5.994

4.  Digital densitometric determination of relative coronary flow distributions.

Authors:  N P Csizmadia; C H Slump; A P Lubbers; M Schrijver; C J Storm
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  Quantification of absolute coronary flow reserve and relative fractional flow reserve in a swine animal model using angiographic image data.

Authors:  Zhang Zhang; Shigeho Takarada; Sabee Molloi
Journal:  Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 4.733

6.  Magnetic resonance imaging for the non-invasive detection of stenosis in coronary artery bypass grafts: clinical reality?

Authors:  E E van der Wall; S E Langerak
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 7.  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

8.  Myocardial blood flow: Putting it into clinical perspective.

Authors:  Thomas Hellmut Schindler
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 5.952

9.  Hemodynamic evaluation of saphenous vein coronary artery bypass grafts: relative merits of Doppler flow velocity and SPECT perfusion imaging.

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

10.  Diagnostic accuracy of stress perfusion CMR in comparison with quantitative coronary angiography: fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and qualitative assessment.

Authors:  Federico E Mordini; Tariq Haddad; Li-Yueh Hsu; Peter Kellman; Tracy B Lowrey; Anthony H Aletras; W Patricia Bandettini; Andrew E Arai
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2014-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.