4.3 Article

Quantification of Myocardial Mass Subtended by a Coronary Stenosis Using Intracoronary Physiology

Journal

CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS
Volume 12, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.007322

Keywords

blood flow velocity; computed tomography angiography; coronary circulation; coronary stenosis; myocardium

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In patients with stable coronary artery disease, the amount of myocardium subtended by coronary stenoses constitutes a major determinant of prognosis, as well as of the benefit of coronary revascularization. We devised a novel method to estimate partial myocardial mass (PMM; ie, the amount of myocardium subtended by a stenosis) during physiological stenosis interrogation. Subsequently, we validated the index against equivalent PMM values derived from applying the Voronoi algorithm on coronary computed tomography angiography. Methods: Based on the myocardial metabolic demand and blood supply, PMM was calculated as follows: PMM (g)=APVxD(2)x pi/(1.24x10(-3)xHRxsBP+1.6), where APV indicates average peak blood flow velocity; D, vessel diameter; HR, heart rate; and sBP, systolic blood pressure. We calculated PMM to 43 coronary vessels (32 patients) interrogated with pressure and Doppler guidewires, and compared it with computed tomography-based PMM. Results: Median PMM was 15.8 g (Q1, Q3: 11.7, 28.4 g) for physiology-based PMM, and 17.0 g (Q1, Q3: 12.5, 25.9 g) for computed tomography-based PMM (P=0.84). Spearman rank correlation coefficient was 0.916 (P<0.001), and Passing-Bablok analysis revealed absence of both constant and proportional differences (coefficient A: -0.9; 95% CI, -4.5 to 0.9; and coefficient B, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.25]. Bland-Altman analysis documented a mean bias of 0.5 g (limit of agreement: -9.1 to 10.2 g). Conclusions: Physiology-based calculation of PMM in the catheterization laboratory is feasible and can be accurately performed as part of functional stenosis assessment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available