(Circulation. 2001;103:184.)
© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.
Brief Rapid Communications |
Role of Variability in Microvascular Resistance on Fractional Flow Reserve and Coronary Blood Flow Velocity Reserve in Intermediate Coronary Lesions
From the Departments of Cardiology and Medical Physics (J.A.E.S.), Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Correspondence to Jan J. Piek, MD, Department of Cardiology, B2-109, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail m.meuwissen{at}amc.uva.nl
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background—Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary blood flow velocity reserve (CFR) represent physiological quantities used to evaluate coronary lesion severity and to make clinical decisions. A comparison between the outcomes of both diagnostic techniques has not been performed in a large cohort of patients with intermediate coronary lesions.
Methods and Results—FFR
and CFR were assessed in 126 consecutive patients with 150 intermediate
coronary lesions (between 40% and 70% diameter stenosis by visual
assessment). Agreement between outcomes of FFR and CFR, categorized at
cut-off values of 0.75 and 2.0, respectively, was observed in 109
coronary lesions (73%), whereas discordant outcomes were present in 41
lesions (27%). In 26 of these 41 lesions, FFR was <0.75 and CFR
2.0
(group A); in the remaining 15 lesions, FFR was 0.75 and CFR<2.0
(group B). Minimum microvascular resistance, defined as the
ratio of mean distal pressure to average peak blood flow velocity
during maximum hyperemia, showed a large variability (overall range,
0.65 to 4.64
mm Hg · cm-1 · s-1)
and was significantly higher in group B than in group A (2.42±0.77
versus 1.91±0.70
mm Hg · cm-1 · s-1;
P=0.034).
Conclusions—Our findings demonstrate the prominent role of microvascular resistance in modulating the relationship between FFR and CFR and emphasize the importance of combined pressure and flow velocity measurements to evaluate coronary lesion severity and microvascular involvement.
Key Words: coronary disease • blood flow • microcirculation
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Coronary angiography is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease, although its value is limited in evaluating the functional significance of intermediate coronary lesions.1 Intracoronary physiological parameters have been introduced to assess functional coronary lesion severity during cardiac catheterization. These parameters, myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow velocity reserve (CFR), have excellent agreement with noninvasive stress testing at cut-off values varying between 0.72 to 0.75 for FFR and 1.7 to 2.0 for CFR,2 3 4 which would suggest agreement between outcomes of FFR and CFR in the same patient. However, distal pressure depends on flow across the stenosis, which is determined by both epicardial and microvascular resistance. A change in the latter affects distal pressure and flow in opposite directions. Therefore, discordance between the results of these diagnostic techniques can be expected in patients with intermediate coronary lesions.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Study Population
FFR and CFR were assessed in 126 consecutive patients with stable angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Society classes I through III) who had 150 intermediate coronary lesions (40% to 70% diameter stenosis on visual assessment). Patients were included when they had
1 vessel with a single coronary lesion that was eligible for
angioplasty. Exclusion criteria were severe renal disease, severe
valvular disease, previous coronary artery bypass grafting, recent
myocardial infarction (<6 weeks), or collateral development. Patients
with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, or
restenosis were not excluded from this study. The Institutional Ethics
Committee of the University of Amsterdam approved the study protocol.
All patients gave written informed consent.
Cardiac Catheterization
Cardiac catheterization was performed following
routine procedures, and quantitative measurements of coronary stenosis
dimensions were obtained using an automated contour detection algorithm
(MEDIS). Throughout the procedure, nitroglycerin (0.1 mg IC) was
administered every 30 minutes, heart rate was monitored, and aortic
pressure was measured via the guiding catheter.
Hemodynamic Measurements
Intracoronary pressure was measured with a 0.014-inch
pressure-monitoring guidewire (RADI Medical), which was first
calibrated, equaled with the aortic pressure in the guiding catheter,
and then positioned with the pressure-sensor 
3 cm distal to the
coronary lesion in the target vessel. Mean aortic and distal pressures
were obtained during baseline measurements, and maximum hyperemia was
induced by a bolus injection of intracoronary adenosine (15 µg for
the right and 20 µg for the left coronary artery). FFR was calculated
as the ratio of the mean distal pressure to the mean aortic pressure
during maximum hyperemia.
After the intracoronary pressure measurements, the pressure-wire was exchanged with a 0.014-inch Doppler-tipped guidewire (FloWire, Endosonics) that was advanced to the same position distal to the target lesion. Baseline and hyperemic average peak flow velocities (APV) were obtained online (FloMap; Endosonics). CFR was calculated as the ratio of hyperemic to baseline APV. CFR was also obtained in an angiographically normal reference vessel, when present (n=116). The relative CFR (rCFR) was calculated for 139 lesions as the ratio between the CFR of the target vessel and that of the reference vessel. FFR and CFR values were categorized according to previously established cut-off values at 0.75 and 2.0, respectively.2 4 A velocity-based index of microvascular resistance during hyperemia (h-MRv) was determined as the ratio of mean distal pressure to APV during maximum hyperemia.
Statistical Analysis
Data are expressed as mean±SD or n (%). Continuous
data were compared using a paired or unpaired Student’s
t test as appropriate, and a
2 test was performed for categorical data
using SPSS version 9.0 (SPSS Inc).
P<0.05 was considered
statistically significant.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Figure 1A
shows a scatterplot of FFR and CFR, together with
the cut-off values used. Linear regression analysis demonstrated
moderate relationships between FFR versus CFR
(r=0.60,
P<0.001) and FFR versus rCFR
(r=0.64,
P<0.001). Concordant outcomes
between FFR and CFR were obtained in 109 of the coronary lesions
(73%). Within these 109 lesions, FFR and CFR were below their
respective cut-off values in 36 cases, whereas in 73 coronary lesions,
both indices were above their threshold. Discordant outcomes between
FFR and CFR were obtained in 41 coronary lesions (27%) . CFR was 2.0
and FFR<0.75 in 26 cases (group A), whereas FFR was 0.75 and
CFR<2.0 in 15 cases (group B). Agreement between dichotomized values
of FFR and CFR revealed a 
of 0.42
(P<0.001).
Figure 1B shows the average pressure gradient-flow velocity
relation underlying the association between FFR and CFR for each group
and illustrates the change of stenosis resistance between baseline and
hyperemic conditions. The following results focus on the 2 groups with
discordant outcomes.
|
There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics between patients with discordant outcomes (group A versus group B), except for the presence of hypertension, which was higher in group B (57% versus 22% in group A, P=0.015). Quantitative measurements of angiographic dimensions showed comparable reference diameters (2.99±0.63 mm versus 2.73±0.45 mm, P=0.17) and minimum lumen diameters (1.14±0.33 mm versus 1.23±0.21 mm, P=0.34) for coronary lesions in groups A and B, respectively. Percent diameter stenosis was slightly higher in group A (61±9% versus 55±7% in group B, P=0.018). Mean heart rate (70±11 bpm versus 68±12 bpm) and aortic pressure (100±19 mm Hg versus 95±12 mm Hg) during intracoronary measurements were similar both within and between patients in groups A and B, respectively.
Significant differences between the discordant groups
were found for mean distal pressure at hyperemia, CFR and baseline APV
for both the target and reference vessels, rCFR, and FFR
(Table).
Note that rCFR and FFR change in opposite directions between the 2
groups. For the entire study population, the h-MRv of the target vessel
ranged from 0.65 to 4.64
mm Hg · cm-1 · s-1
(Figure 2A). It was significantly higher in group B compared
with group A
(Table
and
Figure 2B), but there was no difference in the h-MRv of the
reference vessel between these 2 groups. Within group B, h-MRv was
higher for the target than for the reference vessel
(P=0.048).
|
|
P, pressure gradient. B, Relative frequency of h-MRv obtained in groups with discordant outcomes in FFR and CFR. Vertical dashed and solid lines indicate median h-MRv for groups A and B, respectively. |
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In this study, we compared cut-off–based outcomes for FFR and CFR in intermediate lesions and found discordant results in 27% of the cases.
The observed variability in microvascular resistance plays a prominent role in the discordance between the outcomes of FFR and CFR. It exists both across individuals and across perfusion territories,5 6 and it is related to variability in microvascular structure and is influenced by disease. However, our measurements do not allow differentiation between these 2 causes. Homogeneity in the structure and behavior of the microcirculation of the reference and stenotic vessels is a prerequisite for the concept of rCFR.7 The variability in h-MRv in our more diverse, large patient cohort (n=126) may explain the lower correlation between FFR and rCFR compared with the findings by Baumgart et al7 in a small group of patients (n=21).
In the presence of a stenosis, variability in microvascular
resistance has an impact on the hemodynamic parameters used in the
evaluation of the stenosis of the interrogated vessels, because both
FFR and CFR are influenced by the combination of stenosis and
microvascular resistance, as can be inferred from the electrical analog
shown in
Figure 2A
. If h-MRv increases, CFR will decrease and FFR
will increase, despite an anatomically fixed stenosis. In the absence
of a stenosis, variability in h-MRv has little effect on FFR (1 by
definition), but it would be reflected in CFR.
In the lesions in group A, both baseline APV and h-MRv were low, resulting in a CFR indicative of a nonsignificant coronary narrowing (>2.0). However, the hyperemic pressure gradient caused FFR to be <0.75. Despite an anatomically similar stenosis, the opposite is true for group B. Here, the discordance between FFR and CFR arises because of a low CFR, resulting from a high baseline APV, which can be explained by the higher oxygen demand of the heart in the presence of hypertension. These patients also had a significantly higher h-MRv, which kept hyperemic flow and, thus, the stenotic pressure gradient at a level commensurate with FFR >0.75.
The combination of stenosis (epicardial) and microvascular resistance at hyperemia affects both FFR and CFR and can lead to opposite outcomes in these physiological parameters with respect to their cut-off values, wherever they are chosen. Both distal pressure and flow velocity measurements, preferably simultaneous, are required to quantify this interaction. The latter point is a possible limitation of this study, because the intracoronary signals were obtained sequentially to avoid changes in stenotic characteristics due to the presence of 2 guidewires. However, external hemodynamic conditions, such as heart rate and aortic pressure, remained constant during the assessment of pressure and flow velocity, so one may expect reproducible responses to the vasodilatory stimulus.
Recent clinical studies suggest that PTCA can be safely
deferred in patients with coronary lesions characterized by either
FFR0.75 or
CFR2.0.8 9 The
present study shows that in about a quarter of patients with
intermediate lesions, interventional procedures may be indicated or
deferred, depending on whether a pressure- or flow velocity–derived
parameter is used to reach the decision. However, a complete
hemodynamic assessment rests on the separate evaluation of stenosis and
microvascular resistance, which requires the measurement of both distal
pressure and flow. The impact of combined measurements on clinical
decision-making regarding coronary interventions remains to be
determined.
Received September 22, 2000; revision received November 6, 2000; accepted November 20, 2000.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Tron C, Kern MJ, Donohue TJ, et al. Comparison of quantitative angiographically derived and measured translesion pressure and flow velocity in coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1995;75:111–117.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2.
Pijls NHJ, de
Bruyne B, Peels K, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to
assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenosis.
N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1703–1708.
3. Joye JD, Schulman DS, Lasorda E, et al. Intracoronary Doppler guide wire versus stress single-photon emission computed tomographic thallium-201 imaging in assessment of intermediate coronary stenoses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;24:940–947.[Abstract]
4.
Miller DD, Donohue
TJ, Younis LT, et al. Correlation of pharmacologic
99mTc-sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging
with poststenotic coronary flow reserve in patients with
angiographically intermediate coronary artery stenoses.
Circulation. 1994;89:2150–2160.
5.
Austin RE, Aldea
GS, Coggins DL, et al. Profound spatial heterogeneity of coronary
reserve. Discordance between patterns of resting and maximal myocardial
blood flow. Circ Res. 1990;67:319–331.
6.
Uren NG, Melin JA,
De Bruyne B, et al. Relation between myocardial blood flow and the
severity of coronary artery stenosis.
N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1782–1788.
7.
Baumgart D, Haude
M, Görge G, et al. Improved assessment of coronary stenosis severity
using the relative flow velocity reserve.
Circulation. 1998;98:40–46.
8.
Ferrari M, Schnell
B, Werner GS, et al. Safety of deferring angioplasty in patients with
normal coronary flow velocity reserve.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:82–87.
9.
Bech GJ, De Bruyne
B, Bonnier HJ, et al. Long-term follow-up after deferral of
percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty of intermediate stenosis
on the basis of coronary pressure measurement.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:841–847.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  H. Kitabata, T. Imanishi, T. Kubo, S. Takarada, M. Kashiwagi, H. Matsumoto, H. Tsujioka, H. Ikejima, Y. Arita, K. Okochi, et al. Coronary Microvascular Resistance Index Immediately After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention as a Predictor of the Transmural Extent of Infarction in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Anterior Acute Myocardial Infarction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img., March 1, 2009; 2(3): 263 - 272. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Meimoun, T. Benali, F. Elmkies, S. Sayah, A. Luycx-Bore, L. Doutrelan, Z. Hamdane, J. Boulanger, and C. Tribouilloy Prognostic value of transthoracic coronary flow reserve in medically treated patients with proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis of intermediate severity Eur J Echocardiogr, January 1, 2009; 10(1): 127 - 132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Di Mario, G. R. Heyndrickx, F. Prati, and N. H.J. Pijls CHAPTER 8 Invasive Imaging and Haemodynamics ESC Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, January 1, 2009; 2(1): med-9780199566990-chapter - med-9780199566990-chapter. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Spaan, C. Kolyva, J. van den Wijngaard, R. ter Wee, P. van Horssen, J. Piek, and M. Siebes Coronary structure and perfusion in health and disease Phil Trans R Soc A, September 13, 2008; 366(1878): 3137 - 3153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. M. Marques, P. Knaapen, R. Boellaard, N. Westerhof, A. A. Lammertsma, C. A. Visser, and F. C. Visser Hyperaemic microvascular resistance is not increased in viable myocardium after chronic myocardial infarction Eur. Heart J., October 1, 2007; 28(19): 2320 - 2325. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. J. Verberne, M. Meuwissen, S. A. J. Chamuleau, B.-J. Verhoeff, B. L. F. van Eck-Smit, J. A. E. Spaan, J. J. Piek, and M. Siebes Effect of simultaneous intracoronary guidewires on the predictive accuracy of functional parameters of coronary lesion severity Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, May 1, 2007; 292(5): H2349 - H2355. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. J. Kern, A. Lerman, J.-W. Bech, B. De Bruyne, E. Eeckhout, W. F. Fearon, S. T. Higano, M. J. Lim, M. Meuwissen, J. J. Piek, et al. Physiological Assessment of Coronary Artery Disease in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology Circulation, September 19, 2006; 114(12): 1321 - 1341. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Savoia, R. M. Touyz, D. H. Endemann, Q. Pu, E. A. Ko, C. De Ciuceis, and E. L. Schiffrin Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Added to Previous Antihypertensive Agents on Arteries of Diabetic Hypertensive Patients Hypertension, August 1, 2006; 48(2): 271 - 277. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A.E. Spaan, J. J. Piek, J. I.E. Hoffman, and M. Siebes Physiological Basis of Clinically Used Coronary Hemodynamic Indices Circulation, January 24, 2006; 113(3): 446 - 455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. G. E. VanTeeffelen, S. Dekker, D. S. Fokkema, M. Siebes, H. Vink, and J. A. E. Spaan Hyaluronidase treatment of coronary glycocalyx increases reactive hyperemia but not adenosine hyperemia in dog hearts Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, December 1, 2005; 289(6): H2508 - H2513. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Kruger, K.-C. Koch, I. Kaumanns, M. W. Merx, P. Hanrath, and R. Hoffmann Clinical Significance of Fractional Flow Reserve for Evaluation of Functional Lesion Severity in Stent Restenosis and Native Coronary Arteries Chest, September 1, 2005; 128(3): 1645 - 1649. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Fokkema, J. W. G. E. VanTeeffelen, S. Dekker, I. Vergroesen, J. B. Reitsma, and J. A. E. Spaan Diastolic time fraction as a determinant of subendocardial perfusion Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, May 1, 2005; 288(5): H2450 - H2456. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B.-J. Verhoeff, M. Siebes, M. Meuwissen, B. Atasever, M. Voskuil, R. J. de Winter, K. T. Koch, J. G.P. Tijssen, J. A.E. Spaan, and J. J. Piek Influence of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Coronary Microvascular Resistance Index Circulation, January 4, 2005; 111(1): 76 - 82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Jasti, E. Ivan, V. Yalamanchili, N. Wongpraparut, and M. A. Leesar Correlations Between Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound in Patients With an Ambiguous Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis Circulation, November 2, 2004; 110(18): 2831 - 2836. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Aarnoudse, W. F. Fearon, G. Manoharan, M. Geven, F. van de Vosse, M. Rutten, B. De Bruyne, and N. H.J. Pijls Epicardial Stenosis Severity Does Not Affect Minimal Microcirculatory Resistance Circulation, October 12, 2004; 110(15): 2137 - 2142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Siebes, B.-J. Verhoeff, M. Meuwissen, R. J. de Winter, J. A.E. Spaan, and J. J. Piek Single-Wire Pressure and Flow Velocity Measurement to Quantify Coronary Stenosis Hemodynamics and Effects of Percutaneous Interventions Circulation, February 17, 2004; 109(6): 756 - 762. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. J. Chamuleau, M. Siebes, M. Meuwissen, K. T. Koch, J. A. E. Spaan, and J. J. Piek Association between coronary lesion severity and distal microvascular resistance in patients with coronary artery disease Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, November 1, 2003; 285(5): H2194 - H2200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. L. F. Bedaux, M. B. M. Hofman, S. L. A. Vyt, J. G. F. Bronzwaer, C. A. Visser, and A. C. van Rossum Assessment of coronary artery bypass graft disease using cardiovascular magnetic resonance determination of flow reserve J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 20, 2002; 40(10): 1848 - 1855. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Siebes, S. A. J. Chamuleau, M. Meuwissen, J. J. Piek, and J. A. E. Spaan Influence of hemodynamic conditions on fractional flow reserve: parametric analysis of underlying model Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, October 1, 2002; 283(4): H1462 - H1470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Meuwissen, M. Siebes, S. A.J. Chamuleau, B. L.F. van Eck-Smit, K. T. Koch, R. J. de Winter, J. G.P. Tijssen, J. A.E. Spaan, and J. J. Piek Hyperemic Stenosis Resistance Index for Evaluation of Functional Coronary Lesion Severity Circulation, July 23, 2002; 106(4): 441 - 446. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. H.J. Pijls, B. De Bruyne, L. Smith, W. Aarnoudse, E. Barbato, J. Bartunek, G. J. W. Bech, and F. Van De Vosse Coronary Thermodilution to Assess Flow Reserve: Validation in Humans Circulation, May 28, 2002; 105(21): 2482 - 2486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. J. M. Cornelissen, J. A. E. Spaan, J. Dankelman, C. C. Chan, and F. C. P. Yin Evidence for stretch-induced resistance increase of proximal coronary microcirculation Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, December 1, 2001; 281(6): H2687 - H2696. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. De Bruyne, N. H.J. Pijls, L. Smith, M. Wievegg, and G. R. Heyndrickx Coronary Thermodilution to Assess Flow Reserve: Experimental Validation Circulation, October 23, 2001; 104(17): 2003 - 2006. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. S. Werner, M. Ferrari, B. M. Richartz, O. Gastmann, and H. R. Figulla Microvascular Dysfunction in Chronic Total Coronary Occlusions Circulation, September 4, 2001; 104(10): 1129 - 1134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Seabra-Gomes Is there a future for coronary physiological evaluation in clinical decision making? Eur. Heart J., September 2, 2001; 22(18): 1633 - 1635. [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||