BACKGROUND: Myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFR) is based on pressure measurements. We have now sought to establish a Doppler-based concept of relative flow velocity reserve (RFVR) for the functional assessment of stenosis severity in epicardial coronary arteries. A clear threshold value to discriminate the functional severity of a coronary stenosis does not exist for coronary flow velocity reserve (CVR) based on intracoronary Doppler measurements. In contrast, the concept of FFR, which is based on intracoronary pressure measurements, has been extensively validated. An FFR value below 0.75 reliably indicates a significant stenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: RFVR is calculated as the ratio between distal CVR in the stenosed target vessel and distal CVR in a nonstenotic reference vessel. In 21 patients, RFVR was determined in 24 target vessels by use of intracoronary adenosine and correlated to the FFR, determined as the ratio of mean poststenotic to aortic pressures, in the target vessel. Stenosis severity was classified according to quantitative coronary angiography analysis. Reference diameter was 3.0+/-0.4 mm (mean+/-SD), and area stenosis was 74+/-15% (range, 40% to 95%). CVRs in the target and reference vessels were 2.1+/-0.5 and 2.6+/-0.7, respectively. FFR ranged from 0.49 to 0.99 (mean, 0.81+/-0.15) and RFVR from 0.53 to 1.0 (mean, 0.82+/-0.13). Poststenotic CVR did not correlate with either percent area stenosis (r=0.27, P=NS) or FFR (r=0.33, P=NS). In contrast, FFR as well as RFVR showed a curvilinear relation to percent area stenosis (r=0.89, P<0.0001 and r=0.79, P<0.0001, respectively). There was a close linear correlation between FFR and RFVR (r=0.91, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: RFVR correlates closely to FFR and to percent area stenosis, whereas the correlation of CVR with FFR and percent area stenosis is rather poor. RFVR is a promising new concept for assessment of coronary stenosis severity and clinical decision making based on Doppler measurements.
BACKGROUND: Myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFR) is based on pressure measurements. We have now sought to establish a Doppler-based concept of relative flow velocity reserve (RFVR) for the functional assessment of stenosis severity in epicardial coronary arteries. A clear threshold value to discriminate the functional severity of a coronary stenosis does not exist for coronary flow velocity reserve (CVR) based on intracoronary Doppler measurements. In contrast, the concept of FFR, which is based on intracoronary pressure measurements, has been extensively validated. An FFR value below 0.75 reliably indicates a significant stenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: RFVR is calculated as the ratio between distal CVR in the stenosed target vessel and distal CVR in a nonstenotic reference vessel. In 21 patients, RFVR was determined in 24 target vessels by use of intracoronary adenosine and correlated to the FFR, determined as the ratio of mean poststenotic to aortic pressures, in the target vessel. Stenosis severity was classified according to quantitative coronary angiography analysis. Reference diameter was 3.0+/-0.4 mm (mean+/-SD), and area stenosis was 74+/-15% (range, 40% to 95%). CVRs in the target and reference vessels were 2.1+/-0.5 and 2.6+/-0.7, respectively. FFR ranged from 0.49 to 0.99 (mean, 0.81+/-0.15) and RFVR from 0.53 to 1.0 (mean, 0.82+/-0.13). Poststenotic CVR did not correlate with either percent area stenosis (r=0.27, P=NS) or FFR (r=0.33, P=NS). In contrast, FFR as well as RFVR showed a curvilinear relation to percent area stenosis (r=0.89, P<0.0001 and r=0.79, P<0.0001, respectively). There was a close linear correlation between FFR and RFVR (r=0.91, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: RFVR correlates closely to FFR and to percent area stenosis, whereas the correlation of CVR with FFR and percent area stenosis is rather poor. RFVR is a promising new concept for assessment of coronary stenosis severity and clinical decision making based on Doppler measurements.
Authors: M Albertal; G Van Langenhove; E Regar; I P Kay; D Foley; G Sianos; K Kozuma; T Beijsterveldt; S G Carlier; J A Belardi; E Boersma; J E Sousa; B de Bruyne; P W Serruys Journal: Heart Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Jeong Kee Seo; Jun Kwan; Ju Hyun Suh; Dae Hyeok Kim; Ki Hoon Lee; In Young Hyun; Won Sick Choe; Keum Soo Park; Woo Hyung Lee Journal: Korean J Intern Med Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 2.884
Authors: Young Joon Hong; Yun Ha Choi; Soo Young Park; Chang Wook Nam; Jang Hyun Cho; Won Yu Kang; Sang Rok Lee; Sung Yun Lee; Sang Wook Kim; Sang Yeob Lim; Kyung Ho Yun; Jung Sun Kim; Jin Won Kim; Woong Chol Kang; Ki Seok Kim; Jin Ho Choi; Joong Wha Chung; Soo Joong Kim; Youngkeun Ahn; Myung Ho Jeong Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 3.243