BACKGROUND: The assessment of functional coronary lesion severity using intracoronary physiological parameters such as coronary flow velocity reserve and the more widely used fractional flow reserve relies critically on the establishment of maximal hyperemia. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the stenosis resistance index during nonhyperemic conditions, baseline stenosis resistance index, compared with established hyperemic intracoronary hemodynamic parameters, because achievement of hyperemia can be cumbersome in daily clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 232 patients, including 299 lesions (mean stenosis diameter 55%±11%), underwent myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for documentation of reversible perfusion defects. Distal coronary pressure and flow velocity were assessed with sensor-equipped guidewires during baseline and maximal hyperemia, induced by an intracoronary bolus of adenosine (20-40 µg). We determined stenosis resistance (SR) during baseline and hyperemic conditions as well as fractional flow reserve and coronary flow velocity reserve. The discriminative value for myocardial ischemia on myocardial perfusion scintigraphy of all parameters was compared using receiver-operating-characteristic curves. Baseline SR showed good agreement with myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. The diagnostic performance of baseline SR (area under the curve, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83) was as accurate as fractional flow reserve and coronary flow velocity reserve (area under the curve, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83 and area under the curve, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.81 respectively; P>0.05 compared with baseline SR for both). However, hyperemic SR, combining both pressure and flow velocity information during hyperemia, was superior to all other parameters (area under the curve, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.87; P<0.05 compared with all other parameters). CONCLUSIONS: Combined pressure and flow velocity measurements during baseline conditions may provide a useful tool for functional lesion severity assessment without the need for potent vasodilators.
BACKGROUND: The assessment of functional coronary lesion severity using intracoronary physiological parameters such as coronary flow velocity reserve and the more widely used fractional flow reserve relies critically on the establishment of maximal hyperemia. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the stenosis resistance index during nonhyperemic conditions, baseline stenosis resistance index, compared with established hyperemic intracoronary hemodynamic parameters, because achievement of hyperemia can be cumbersome in daily clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 232 patients, including 299 lesions (mean stenosis diameter 55%±11%), underwent myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for documentation of reversible perfusion defects. Distal coronary pressure and flow velocity were assessed with sensor-equipped guidewires during baseline and maximal hyperemia, induced by an intracoronary bolus of adenosine (20-40 µg). We determined stenosis resistance (SR) during baseline and hyperemic conditions as well as fractional flow reserve and coronary flow velocity reserve. The discriminative value for myocardial ischemia on myocardial perfusion scintigraphy of all parameters was compared using receiver-operating-characteristic curves. Baseline SR showed good agreement with myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. The diagnostic performance of baseline SR (area under the curve, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83) was as accurate as fractional flow reserve and coronary flow velocity reserve (area under the curve, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83 and area under the curve, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.81 respectively; P>0.05 compared with baseline SR for both). However, hyperemic SR, combining both pressure and flow velocity information during hyperemia, was superior to all other parameters (area under the curve, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.87; P<0.05 compared with all other parameters). CONCLUSIONS: Combined pressure and flow velocity measurements during baseline conditions may provide a useful tool for functional lesion severity assessment without the need for potent vasodilators.
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
Authors: Tim P van de Hoef; Joo Myung Lee; Mauro Echavarria-Pinto; Bon-Kwon Koo; Hitoshi Matsuo; Manesh R Patel; Justin E Davies; Javier Escaned; Jan J Piek Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Froukje Nolte; Eoin R Hyde; Cristina Rolandi; Jack Lee; Pepijn van Horssen; Kal Asrress; Jeroen P H M van den Wijngaard; Andrew N Cookson; Tim van de Hoef; Radomir Chabiniok; Reza Razavi; Christian Michler; Gilion L T F Hautvast; Jan J Piek; Marcel Breeuwer; Maria Siebes; Eike Nagel; Nic P Smith; Jos A E Spaan Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2013-07-27 Impact factor: 2.602
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