Measurement from arteriograms of regional myocardial bed size distal to any point in the coronary vascular tree for assessing anatomic area at risk

AbstractObjectives. To obtain the size of regional myocardial mass for individual coronary arteries in vivo.Background. The anatomic site of occlusion in a coronary artery does not predict the size of the risk area because location of the occlusion does not account for the size of the artery or of its dependent myocardial bed.Methods. Intracoronary radiolabeled microspheres were injected and coronary arteriograms were quantitatively analyzed by semiautomated methods. The coronary artery lumen areas and the sum of epicardial coronary artery branch lengths distal to the points where radiomicrospheres had been injected were determined from both in vivo and postmortem coronary arteriograms. Regional myocardial mass distal to the point of each microsphere injection was correlated with corresponding distal summed coronary branch lengths and with coronary artery lumen areas.Results. 1) Regional myocardial mass was closely and linearly related to sum of coronary artery branch lengths distal to any point in the coronary artery tree and therefore could be determined for any location on a coronary arteriogram. 2) The fraction of total left ventricular mass at risk distal to a stenosis could be determined from the corresponding fraction of total coronary artery tree length independently of the scale or X-ray magnification used to measure absolute branch lengths. 3) Cross-sectional lumen area at any point in the left coronary artery tree was closely related to the size of the dependent vascular bed with a curvilinear relation similar to that observed in humans with normal coronary arteriograms.Conclusions. On coronary arteriograms, the anatomic area at risk for myocardial infarction distal to any point in the coronary artery tree can be determined from the sum of distal coronary artery branch lengths. There is a curvilinear relation between coronary artery lumen area and dependent regional myocardial mass comparable to that in humans, reflecting fundamental physical principles underlying the structure of the coronary vascular tree

Prognostic value of microvascular resistance and its association to fractional flow reserve:a DEFINE-FLOW substudy

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of hyperemic microvascular resistance (HMR) and its relationship with hyperemic stenosis resistance (HSR) index and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in stable coronary artery disease. METHODS: This is a substudy of the DEFINE-FLOW cohort (NCT02328820), which evaluated the prognosis of lesions (n=456) after combined FFR and coronary flow reserve (CFR) assessment in a prospective, non-blinded, non-randomised, multicentre study in 12 centres in Europe and Japan. Participants (n=430) were evaluated by wire-based measurement of coronary pressure, flow and vascular resistance (ComboWire XT, Phillips Volcano, San Diego, California, USA). RESULTS: Mean FFR and CFR were 0.82±0.10 and 2.2±0.6, respectively. When divided according to FFR and CFR thresholds (above and below 0.80 and 2.0, respectively), HMR was highest in lesions with FFR>0.80 and CFR<2.0 (n=99) compared with lesions with FFR≤0.80 and CFR≥2.0 (n=68) (2.92±1.2 vs 1.91±0.64 mm Hg/cm/s, p<0.001). The FFR value was proportional to the ratio between HMR and the HMR+HSR (total resistance), 95% limits of agreement (−0.032; 0.019), bias (−0.003±0.02) and correlation (r(2)=0.98, p<0.0001). Cox regression model using HMR as continuous parameter for target vessel failure showed an HR of 1.51, 95% CI (0.9 to 2.4), p=0.10. CONCLUSIONS: Increased HMR was not associated with a higher rate of adverse clinical events, in this population of mainly stable patients. FFR can be equally well expressed as HMR/HMR+HSR, thereby providing an alternative conceptual formulation linking epicardial severity with microvascular resistance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02328820

Continuum of vasodilator stress from rest to contrast medium to adenosine hyperemia for fractional flow reserve assessment

Objectives: This study compared the diagnostic performance with adenosine-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤0.8 of contrast-based FFR (cFFR), resting distal pressure (Pd)/aortic pressure (Pa), and the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). Background: FFR objectively identifies lesions that benefit from medical therapy versus revascularization. However, FFR requires maximal vasodilation, usually achieved with adenosine. Radiographic contrast injection causes submaximal coronary hyperemia. Therefore, intracoronary contrast could provide an easy and inexpensive tool for predicting FFR. Methods: We recruited patients undergoing routine FFR assessment and made paired, repeated measurements of all physiology metrics (Pd/Pa, iFR, cFFR, and FFR). Contrast medium and dose were per local practice, as was the dose of intracoronary adenosine. Operators were encouraged to perform both intracoronary and intravenous adenosine assessments and a final drift check to assess wire calibration. A central core lab analyzed blinded pressure tracings in a standardized fashion. Results: A total of 763 subjects were enrolled from 12 international centers. Contrast volume was 8 ± 2 ml per measurement, and 8 different contrast media were used. Repeated measurements of each metric showed a bias &lt;0.005, but a lower SD (less variability) for cFFR than resting indexes. Although Pd/Pa and iFR demonstrated equivalent performance against FFR ≤0.8 (78.5% vs. 79.9% accuracy; p = 0.78; area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve: 0.875 vs. 0.881; p = 0.35), cFFR improved both metrics (85.8% accuracy and 0.930 area; p &lt; 0.001 for each) with an optimal binary threshold of 0.83. A hybrid decision-making strategy using cFFR required adenosine less often than when based on either Pd/Pa or iFR. Conclusions: cFFR provides diagnostic performance superior to that of Pd/Pa or iFR for predicting FFR. For clinical scenarios or health care systems in which adenosine is contraindicated or prohibitively expensive, cFFR offers a universal technique to simplify invasive coronary physiological assessments. Yet FFR remains the reference standard for diagnostic certainty as even cFFR reached only ∼85% agreement

Coronary flow reserve as a physiologic measure of stenosis severity

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 (ratepressure) 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. Stenosis flow reserve was measured by quantitative coronary arteriography and coronary flow reserve by flow meter after intracoronary adenosine before and during ±40% change in aortic pressure.Absolute coronary flow reserve by flow meter for fixed stenosis geometry varied significantly depending on aortic pressure and rate-pressure product. In contrast, stenosis flow reserve by quantitative arteriography was not affected by these variables. For example, for all 65% stenoses, coronary flow reserve by flow meter was 5.2 ± 1.7 (±33% variation); by comparison, stenosis flow reserve by quantitative arteriography was 5.0 ± 0.5 (±10% variation). For 366 stenoses, the size of 1 SD, expressed as a percent of the mean coronary flow reserve by flow meter for each category of stenosis severity from 0 to 100% narrowing, averaged ±45% compared with ±12% of mean stenosis flow reserve by quantitative arteriography for the same categories of stenosis severity.Therefore, absolute coronary flow reserve by measured flow meter is highly variable for fixed stenosis geometry depending on aortic pressure and rate-pressure product, but reflects actual flow capacity due to stenosis severity and physiologic conditions at the time of measurement. Stenosis flow reserve determined by quantitative coronary arteriography more specifically reflects functional stenosis severity under standardized physiologic conditions