Impact of vessel volume on thermodilution measurements in patients with coronary microvascular dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Two invasive methods are available to estimate microvascular resistance: bolus and continuous thermodilution. Comparative studies have revealed a lack of concordance between measurements of microvascular resistance obtained through these techniques. AIMS: This study aimed to examine the influence of vessel volume on bolus thermodilution measurements. METHODS: We prospectively included patients with angina with non-obstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA) undergoing bolus and continuous thermodilution assessments. All patients underwent coronary CT angiography to extract vessel volume. Coronary microvascular dysfunction was defined as coronary flow reserve (CFR) < 2.0. Measurements of absolute microvascular resistance (in Woods units) and index of microvascular resistance (IMR) were compared before and after volumetric adjustment. RESULTS: Overall, 94 patients with ANOCA were included in this study. The mean age was 64.7 ± 10.8 years, 48% were female, and 19% had diabetes. The prevalence of CMD was 16% based on bolus thermodilution, while continuous thermodilution yielded a prevalence of 27% (Cohen's Kappa 0.44, 95% CI 0.23-0.65). There was no correlation in microvascular resistance between techniques (r = 0.17, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.36, p = 0.104). The adjustment of IMR by vessel volume significantly increased the agreement with absolute microvascular resistance derived from continuous thermodilution (r = 0.48, 95% CI 0.31-0.63, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ANOCA, invasive methods based on coronary thermodilution yielded conflicting results for the assessment of CMD. Adjusting IMR with vessel volume improved the agreement with continuous thermodilution for the assessment of microvascular resistance. These findings strongly suggest the importance of considering vessel volume when interpreting bolus thermodilution assessment.

The Effect of Hydrostatic Pressure on Coronary Flow and Pressure-Based Indices of Coronary Stenosis Severity.

Background: To assess whether hydrostatic pressure gradients caused by coronary height differences in supine versus prone positioning during invasive physiological stenosis assessment affect resting and hyperaemic pressure-based indices or coronary flow. Methods: Twenty-three coronary stenoses were assessed in twenty-one patients with stable coronary artery disease. All patients had a stenosis of at least 50% visually defined on previous coronary angiography. Pd/Pa, iFR, FFR, and coronary flow velocity (APV) measured using a Doppler were recorded across the same stenosis, with the patient in the prone position, followed by repeat measurements in the standard supine position. Results: When comparing prone to supine measurements in the same stenosis, in the LAD, there was a significant change in mean Pd/Pa of 0.08 ± 0.04 (p = 0.0006), in the iFR of 0.06 ± 0.07 (p = 0.02), and in the FFR of 0.09 ± 0.07 (p = 0.003). In the Cx, there was a change in mean Pd/Pa of 0.05 ± 0.04 (p = 0.009), iFR of 0.07 ± 0.04 (p = 0.01), and FFR of 0.05 ± 0.03 (p = 0.006). In the RCA, there was a change in Pd/Pa of 0.05 ± 0.04 (p = 0.032), iFR of 0.04 ± 0.05 (p = 0.19), and FFR of 0.04+-0.03 (p = 0.004). Resting and hyperaemic coronary flow did not change significantly (resting delta APV = 1.6 cm/s, p = 0.31; hyperaemic delta APV = 0.9 cm/s, p = 0.85). Finally, 36% of iFR measurements and 26% of FFR measurements were re-classified across an ischaemic threshold when prone and supine measurements were compared across the same stenosis. Conclusions: Pd/Pa, iFR, and FFR were affected by hydrostatic pressure variations caused by coronary height differences in prone versus supine positioning. Coronary flow did not change signifying a purely pressure-based phenomenon.

Comparison of bolus versus continuous thermodilution derived indices of microvascular dysfunction in revascularized coronary syndromes.

Background: The assessment of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) using invasive methods is a field of growing interest, however the preferred method remains debated. Bolus and continuous thermodilution are commonly used methods, but weak agreement has been observed in patients with angina with non-obstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA). This study examined their agreement in revascularized acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) patients. Objective: To compare bolus thermodilution and continuous thermodilution indices of CMD in revascularized ACS and CCS patients and assess their diagnostic agreement at pre-defined cut-off points. Methods: Patients from two centers underwent paired bolus and continuous thermodilution assessments after revascularization. CMD indices were compared between the two methods and their agreements at binary cut-off points were assessed. Results: Ninety-six patients and 116 vessels were included. The mean age was 64 ± 11 years, and 20 (21 %) were female. Overall, weak correlations were observed between the Index of Microcirculatory Resistance (IMR) and continuous thermodilution microvascular resistance (Rµ) (rho = 0.30p = 0.001). The median coronary flow reserve (CFR) from continuous thermodilution (CFRcont) and bolus thermodilution (CFRbolus) were 2.19 (1.76-2.67) and 2.55 (1.50-3.58), respectively (p < 0.001). Weak correlation and agreement were observed between CFRcont and CFRbolus (rho = 0.37, p < 0.001, ICC 0.228 [0.055-0.389]). When assessed at CFR cut-off values of 2.0 and 2.5, the methods disagreed in 41 (35 %) and 45 (39 %) of cases, respectively. Conclusions: There is a significant difference and weak agreement between bolus and continuous thermodilution-derived indices, which must be considered when diagnosing CMD in ACS and CCS patients.

Measuring Absolute Coronary Flow and Microvascular Resistance by Thermodilution: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Diagnosing coronary microvascular dysfunction remains challenging, primarily due to the lack of direct measurements of absolute coronary blood flow (Q) and microvascular resistance (Rµ). However, there has been recent progress with the development and validation of continuous intracoronary thermodilution, which offers a simplified and validated approach for clinical use. This technique enables direct quantification of Q and Rµ, leading to precise and accurate evaluation of the coronary microcirculation. To ensure consistent and reliable results, it is crucial to follow a standardized protocol when performing continuous intracoronary thermodilution measurements. This document aims to summarize the principles of thermodilution-derived absolute coronary flow measurements and propose a standardized method for conducting these assessments. The proposed standardization serves as a guide to ensure the best practice of the method, enhancing the clinical assessment of the coronary microcirculation.

Assessing the Impact of Prolonged Averaging of Coronary Continuous Thermodilution Traces.

Continuous Thermodilution is a novel method of quantifying coronary flow (Q) in mL/min. To account for variability of Q within the cardiac cycle, the trace is smoothened with a 2 s moving average filter. This can sometimes be ineffective due to significant heart rate variability, ventricular extrasystoles, and deep inspiration, resulting in a fluctuating temperature trace and ambiguity in the location of the "steady state". This study aims to assess whether a longer moving average filter would smoothen any fluctuations within the continuous thermodilution traces resulting in improved interpretability and reproducibility on a test-retest basis. Patients with ANOCA underwent repeat continuous thermodilution measurements. Analysis of traces were performed at averages of 10, 15, and 20 s to determine the maximum acceptable average. The maximum acceptable average was subsequently applied as a moving average filter and the traces were re-analysed to assess the practical consequences of a longer moving average. Reproducibility was then assessed and compared to a 2 s moving average. Of the averages tested, only 10 s met the criteria for acceptance. When the data was reanalysed with a 10 s moving average filter, there was no significant improvement in reproducibility, however, it resulted in a 12% diagnostic mismatch. Applying a longer moving average filter to continuous thermodilution data does not improve reproducibility. Furthermore, it results in a loss of fidelity on the traces, and a 12% diagnostic mismatch. Overall, current practice should be maintained.