Henk Everaars1, Guus A de Waard1, Roel S Driessen1, Ibrahim Danad1, Peter M van de Ven2, Pieter G Raijmakers3, Adriaan A Lammertsma3, Albert C van Rossum1, Paul Knaapen1, Niels van Royen4. 1. Department of Cardiology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Cardiology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: niels.vanroyen@radboudumc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare Doppler flow velocity reserve (CFRDoppl) and thermodilution-derived coronary flow reserve (CFRthermo) head-to-head with the gold standard for quantification of myocardial perfusion, [15O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET). BACKGROUND: Coronary flow reserve (CFR) is an important parameter for assessing coronary vascular function. To date, 2 techniques are available for invasive assessment of CFR: Doppler flow velocity and thermodilution. Although these techniques have been compared with each other, neither has been compared with [15O]H2O PET perfusion imaging. METHODS: CFR was assessed in 98 vessels of 40 consecutive stable patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Patients underwent [15O]H2O PET, followed by invasive angiography in conjunction with simultaneous measurements of fractional flow reserve, CFRDoppl, and CFRthermo. Both normal and obstructed arteries were included. RESULTS: The quality of Doppler flow velocity traces was significantly lower than that of thermodilution curves (p < 0.001). A moderate correlation was observed between CFRDoppl and CFRthermo (r = 0.59; p < 0.001). CFRDoppl correlated well with PET-derived CFR (CFRPET) (r = 0.82; p < 0.001). In contrast, the correlation between CFRthermo and CFRPET was only modest (r = 0.55; p < 0.001). This difference in correlation with CFRPET was significant (t = 4.9; df = 95; p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a tendency of CFRthermo to overestimate flow reserve at higher values. CONCLUSIONS: Coronary flow reserve, determined using Doppler flow velocity, has superior agreement with [15O]H2O PET in comparison with CFRthermo.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare Doppler flow velocity reserve (CFRDoppl) and thermodilution-derived coronary flow reserve (CFRthermo) head-to-head with the gold standard for quantification of myocardial perfusion, [15O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET). BACKGROUND: Coronary flow reserve (CFR) is an important parameter for assessing coronary vascular function. To date, 2 techniques are available for invasive assessment of CFR: Doppler flow velocity and thermodilution. Although these techniques have been compared with each other, neither has been compared with [15O]H2O PET perfusion imaging. METHODS: CFR was assessed in 98 vessels of 40 consecutive stable patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Patients underwent [15O]H2O PET, followed by invasive angiography in conjunction with simultaneous measurements of fractional flow reserve, CFRDoppl, and CFRthermo. Both normal and obstructed arteries were included. RESULTS: The quality of Doppler flow velocity traces was significantly lower than that of thermodilution curves (p < 0.001). A moderate correlation was observed between CFRDoppl and CFRthermo (r = 0.59; p < 0.001). CFRDoppl correlated well with PET-derived CFR (CFRPET) (r = 0.82; p < 0.001). In contrast, the correlation between CFRthermo and CFRPET was only modest (r = 0.55; p < 0.001). This difference in correlation with CFRPET was significant (t = 4.9; df = 95; p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a tendency of CFRthermo to overestimate flow reserve at higher values. CONCLUSIONS: Coronary flow reserve, determined using Doppler flow velocity, has superior agreement with [15O]H2O PET in comparison with CFRthermo.
Authors: Vijay Kunadian; Alaide Chieffo; Paolo G Camici; Colin Berry; Javier Escaned; Angela H E M Maas; Eva Prescott; Nicole Karam; Yolande Appelman; Chiara Fraccaro; Gill Louise Buchanan; Stephane Manzo-Silberman; Rasha Al-Lamee; Evelyn Regar; Alexandra Lansky; J Dawn Abbott; Lina Badimon; Dirk J Duncker; Roxana Mehran; Davide Capodanno; Andreas Baumbach Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Stefano Masi; Damiano Rizzoni; Stefano Taddei; Robert Jay Widmer; Augusto C Montezano; Thomas F Lüscher; Ernesto L Schiffrin; Rhian M Touyz; Francesco Paneni; Amir Lerman; Gaetano A Lanza; Agostino Virdis Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Federico Marin; Roberto Scarsini; Dimitrios Terentes-Printzios; Rafail A Kotronias; Flavio Ribichini; Adrian P Banning; Giovanni Luigi De Maria Journal: Curr Cardiol Rev Date: 2022
Authors: Nissi Suppogu; Janet Wei; Odayme Quesada; Chrisandra Shufelt; Galen Cook-Wiens; Bruce Samuels; John W Petersen; R David Anderson; Eileen M Handberg; Carl J Pepine; C Noel Bairey Merz Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 4.039
Authors: Floor Groepenhoff; Sophie H Bots; Elise L Kessler; Ariane A Sickinghe; Anouk L M Eikendal; Tim Leiner; Hester M den Ruijter Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Sascha Beck; Valeria Martínez Pereyra; Andreas Seitz; Johanna McChord; Astrid Hubert; Raffi Bekeredjian; Udo Sechtem; Peter Ong Journal: Eur Cardiol Date: 2021-07-05
Authors: Thomas J Ford; Peter Ong; Udo Sechtem; John Beltrame; Paolo G Camici; Filippo Crea; Juan-Carlos Kaski; C Noel Bairey Merz; Carl J Pepine; Hiroaki Shimokawa; Colin Berry Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2020-08-24 Impact factor: 11.075