RESUMEN
Background: Microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) is a recently introduced specific index of coronary microcirculation. MRR calculation can utilize parameters deriving from coronary flow reserve (CFR) assessment, provided that intracoronary pressure data are also available. The previously proposed pressure-bounded CFR (CFRpb) defines the possible CFR interval on the basis of resting and hyperemic pressure gradients in the epicardial vessel, however, its correlation to the Doppler wire measurement was reported to be rather poor without the correction for hydrostatic pressure. Purpose: We aimed to determine the pressure-bounded coronary MRR interval with hydrostatic pressure correction according to the previously established equations of CFRpb adapted for the MRR concept. Furthermore, we also aimed to design a prediction model using the actual MRR value within the pressure-bounded interval and validate the results against the gold-standard Doppler wire technique. Methods: Hydrostatic pressure between the tip of the catheter and the sensor of the pressure wire was calculated by height difference measurement from a lateral angiographic view. In the derivation cohort the pressure-bounded MRR interval (between MRRpbmin and MRRpbmax) was determined solely from hydrostatic pressure-corrected intracoronary pressure data. The actual MRR was calculated by simple hemodynamic equations incorporating the anatomical data of the three-dimensionally reconstructed coronary artery (MRRp-3D). These results were analyzed by regression analyses to find relations between the MRRpb bounds and the actual MRRp-3D. Results: In the derivation cohort of 23 measurements, linear regression analysis showed a tight relation between MRRpbmax and MRRp-3D (r 2 = 0.74, p < 0.0001). Using this relation (MRRp-3D = 1.04 + 0.51 × MRRpbmax), the linear prediction of the MRR was tested in the validation cohort of 19 measurements against the gold standard Doppler wire technique. A significant correlation was found between the linearly predicted and the measured values (r = 0.54, p = 0.01). If the area stenosis (AS%) was included to a quadratic prediction model, the correlation was improved (r = 0.63, p = 0.004). Conclusions: The MRR can be predicted reliably to assess microvascular function by our simple model. After the correction for hydrostatic pressure error, the pressure data during routine FFR measurement provides a simultaneous physiological assessment of the macro- and microvasculature.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In recent years, several indices have been proposed for quantifying coronary microvascular resistance. We intended to conduct a comprehensive review that systematically evaluates indices of microvascular resistance derived from angiography. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify and analyze angiography-derived indices of microvascular resistance that have been validated against an invasive reference method. We aimed to compare their limits of agreement with their reference methods and explore their advantages and inherent limitations. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched PubMed from inception until 2022 for studies on different techniques for quantifying microvascular resistance. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies included techniques that applied calculations based solely on invasive angiography, and were validated against invasively measured thermodilution-derived index of microvascular resistance. The remaining two studies combined angiography with invasively measured intracoronary pressure data, and were validated against invasive Doppler measurements. We converted the ± 1.96 standard deviation limits of agreement with the reference method from the seven studies into percentages relative to the cut-off value of the reference method. The lower limits of agreement for angiography-based methods ranged from - 122 to - 60%, while the upper limits ranged from 74 to 135%. The range of the limits of agreement was considerably lower for the two combined angiography- and pressure-based methods, standing at - 52 to 60% and - 25 to 27%. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that combined angiography- and pressure-based methods provide a more reliable assessment of microvascular resistance compared to methods relying solely on angiography. Central illustration. Comparative assessment of image-based methods quantifying microvascular resistance with and without intracoronary pressure measurements. Angiography-based methods rely on angiography alone to calculate the microvascular resistance by utilizing angiographic frame counting to extrapolate coronary flow (Q) and subsequently deriving distal coronary pressure using fluid dynamic equations. Combined angiography- and pressure-based methods utilize invasive intracoronary pressure gradients measured during rest and maximal vasodilation to determine coronary flow in their calculation of microvascular resistance. The combined methods showed more acceptable levels of agreement with their reference methods compared to angiography-based methods alone.
