4.7 Article

Pressure-derived measurement of coronary flow reserve

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.09.063

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES We aimed to validate the technique of measuring the coronary flow reserve (CFR) with coronary pressure measurements against an established thermodilution technique. BACKGROUND The CFR has traditionally required measurement of coronary blood flow velocity with the Doppler wire and, more recently, using a thermodilution technique with the coronary pressure wire. However, recent work has suggested that the CFR may be derived from pressure measurements alone (the ratio of the square root of the pressure drop across an epicardial stenosis during hyperemia to that value at rest). This depends on the assumption that friction losses across a coronary stenosis are negligible. METHODS We compared pressure-derived CFR values with those obtained by the thermodilution technique using the intracoronary pressure wire in 38 stenoses in 34 patients with significant coronary stenoses undergoing percutaneous intervention. We also compared these two techniques of measuring CFR in 25 stenoses (6 vessels) artificially created by inflating small balloons within a stented coronary artery after percutaneous intervention. RESULTS There is a close linear relationship between pressure-derived and thermodilution CFR in native (r(2) = 0.52; p < 0.001) and artificial sterroses (r(2) = 0.54; p < 0.05), although the pressure-derived technique appears to systematically underestimate CFR values in both situations. This applies to native and artificial stenoses. CONCLUSIONS Coronary flow reserve cannot be measured merely with pressure alone, and it cannot be safely assumed that friction losses are negligible across a native coronary stenosis. These data suggest that friction loss is an important determinant of the pressure gradient along an atherosclerotic coronary artery. (C) 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据