Doppler Versus Thermodilution-Derived Coronary Microvascular Resistance to Predict Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction or Stable Angina Pectoris

Rupert P. Williams, Guus A. de Waard, Kalpa De Silva, Matthew Lumley, Kaleab Asrress, Satpal Arri, Howard Ellis, Awais Mir, Brian Clapp, Amedeo Chiribiri, Sven Plein, Paul F. Teunissen, Maurits R. Hollander, Michael Marber, Simon Redwood, Niels van Royen, Divaka Perera

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Coronary microvascular resistance is increasingly measured as a predictor of clinical outcomes, but there is no accepted gold-standard measurement. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of 2 invasive indices of microvascular resistance, Doppler-derived hyperemic microvascular resistance (hMR) and thermodilution-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), at predicting microvascular dysfunction. A total of 54 patients (61 ± 10 years) who underwent cardiac catheterization for stable coronary artery disease (n = 10) or acute myocardial infarction (n = 44) had simultaneous intracoronary pressure, Doppler flow velocity and thermodilution flow data acquired from 74 unobstructed vessels, at rest and during hyperemia. Three independent measurements of microvascular function were assessed, using predefined dichotomous thresholds: (1) coronary flow reserve (CFR), the average value of Doppler- and thermodilution-derived CFR; (2) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) derived myocardial perfusion reserve index; and (3) CMR-derived microvascular obstruction. hMR correlated with IMR (rho = 0.41, p <0.0001). hMR had better diagnostic accuracy than IMR to predict CFR (area under curve [AUC] 0.82 vs 0.58, p <0.001, sensitivity and specificity 77% and 77% vs 51% and 71%) and myocardial perfusion reserve index (AUC 0.85 vs 0.72, p = 0.19, sensitivity and specificity 82% and 80% vs 64% and 75%). In patients with acute myocardial infarction, the AUCs of hMR and IMR at predicting extensive microvascular obstruction were 0.83 and 0.72, respectively (p = 0.22, sensitivity and specificity 78% and 74% vs 44% and 91%). We conclude that these 2 invasive indices of coronary microvascular resistance only correlate modestly and so cannot be considered equivalent. In our study, the correlation between independent invasive and noninvasive measurements of microvascular function was better with hMR than with IMR.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-8
JournalAmerican Journal of Cardiology
Volume121
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Jan 2018

Cite this

Williams, Rupert P. ; de Waard, Guus A. ; De Silva, Kalpa ; Lumley, Matthew ; Asrress, Kaleab ; Arri, Satpal ; Ellis, Howard ; Mir, Awais ; Clapp, Brian ; Chiribiri, Amedeo ; Plein, Sven ; Teunissen, Paul F. ; Hollander, Maurits R. ; Marber, Michael ; Redwood, Simon ; van Royen, Niels ; Perera, Divaka. / Doppler Versus Thermodilution-Derived Coronary Microvascular Resistance to Predict Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction or Stable Angina Pectoris. In: American Journal of Cardiology. 2018 ; Vol. 121, No. 1. pp. 1-8.
@article{1e22b7c3f2fb4046b55c9c8039b9130b,
title = "Doppler Versus Thermodilution-Derived Coronary Microvascular Resistance to Predict Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction or Stable Angina Pectoris",
abstract = "Coronary microvascular resistance is increasingly measured as a predictor of clinical outcomes, but there is no accepted gold-standard measurement. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of 2 invasive indices of microvascular resistance, Doppler-derived hyperemic microvascular resistance (hMR) and thermodilution-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), at predicting microvascular dysfunction. A total of 54 patients (61 ± 10 years) who underwent cardiac catheterization for stable coronary artery disease (n = 10) or acute myocardial infarction (n = 44) had simultaneous intracoronary pressure, Doppler flow velocity and thermodilution flow data acquired from 74 unobstructed vessels, at rest and during hyperemia. Three independent measurements of microvascular function were assessed, using predefined dichotomous thresholds: (1) coronary flow reserve (CFR), the average value of Doppler- and thermodilution-derived CFR; (2) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) derived myocardial perfusion reserve index; and (3) CMR-derived microvascular obstruction. hMR correlated with IMR (rho = 0.41, p <0.0001). hMR had better diagnostic accuracy than IMR to predict CFR (area under curve [AUC] 0.82 vs 0.58, p <0.001, sensitivity and specificity 77{\%} and 77{\%} vs 51{\%} and 71{\%}) and myocardial perfusion reserve index (AUC 0.85 vs 0.72, p = 0.19, sensitivity and specificity 82{\%} and 80{\%} vs 64{\%} and 75{\%}). In patients with acute myocardial infarction, the AUCs of hMR and IMR at predicting extensive microvascular obstruction were 0.83 and 0.72, respectively (p = 0.22, sensitivity and specificity 78{\%} and 74{\%} vs 44{\%} and 91{\%}). We conclude that these 2 invasive indices of coronary microvascular resistance only correlate modestly and so cannot be considered equivalent. In our study, the correlation between independent invasive and noninvasive measurements of microvascular function was better with hMR than with IMR.",
author = "Williams, {Rupert P.} and {de Waard}, {Guus A.} and {De Silva}, Kalpa and Matthew Lumley and Kaleab Asrress and Satpal Arri and Howard Ellis and Awais Mir and Brian Clapp and Amedeo Chiribiri and Sven Plein and Teunissen, {Paul F.} and Hollander, {Maurits R.} and Michael Marber and Simon Redwood and {van Royen}, Niels and Divaka Perera",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.09.012",
language = "English",
volume = "121",
pages = "1--8",
journal = "American Journal of Cardiology",
issn = "0002-9149",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

Doppler Versus Thermodilution-Derived Coronary Microvascular Resistance to Predict Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction or Stable Angina Pectoris. / Williams, Rupert P.; de Waard, Guus A.; De Silva, Kalpa; Lumley, Matthew; Asrress, Kaleab; Arri, Satpal; Ellis, Howard; Mir, Awais; Clapp, Brian; Chiribiri, Amedeo; Plein, Sven; Teunissen, Paul F.; Hollander, Maurits R.; Marber, Michael; Redwood, Simon; van Royen, Niels; Perera, Divaka.

In: American Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 121, No. 1, 02.01.2018, p. 1-8.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Doppler Versus Thermodilution-Derived Coronary Microvascular Resistance to Predict Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction or Stable Angina Pectoris

AU - Williams, Rupert P.

AU - de Waard, Guus A.

AU - De Silva, Kalpa

AU - Lumley, Matthew

AU - Asrress, Kaleab

AU - Arri, Satpal

AU - Ellis, Howard

AU - Mir, Awais

AU - Clapp, Brian

AU - Chiribiri, Amedeo

AU - Plein, Sven

AU - Teunissen, Paul F.

AU - Hollander, Maurits R.

AU - Marber, Michael

AU - Redwood, Simon

AU - van Royen, Niels

AU - Perera, Divaka

PY - 2018/1/2

Y1 - 2018/1/2

N2 - Coronary microvascular resistance is increasingly measured as a predictor of clinical outcomes, but there is no accepted gold-standard measurement. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of 2 invasive indices of microvascular resistance, Doppler-derived hyperemic microvascular resistance (hMR) and thermodilution-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), at predicting microvascular dysfunction. A total of 54 patients (61 ± 10 years) who underwent cardiac catheterization for stable coronary artery disease (n = 10) or acute myocardial infarction (n = 44) had simultaneous intracoronary pressure, Doppler flow velocity and thermodilution flow data acquired from 74 unobstructed vessels, at rest and during hyperemia. Three independent measurements of microvascular function were assessed, using predefined dichotomous thresholds: (1) coronary flow reserve (CFR), the average value of Doppler- and thermodilution-derived CFR; (2) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) derived myocardial perfusion reserve index; and (3) CMR-derived microvascular obstruction. hMR correlated with IMR (rho = 0.41, p <0.0001). hMR had better diagnostic accuracy than IMR to predict CFR (area under curve [AUC] 0.82 vs 0.58, p <0.001, sensitivity and specificity 77% and 77% vs 51% and 71%) and myocardial perfusion reserve index (AUC 0.85 vs 0.72, p = 0.19, sensitivity and specificity 82% and 80% vs 64% and 75%). In patients with acute myocardial infarction, the AUCs of hMR and IMR at predicting extensive microvascular obstruction were 0.83 and 0.72, respectively (p = 0.22, sensitivity and specificity 78% and 74% vs 44% and 91%). We conclude that these 2 invasive indices of coronary microvascular resistance only correlate modestly and so cannot be considered equivalent. In our study, the correlation between independent invasive and noninvasive measurements of microvascular function was better with hMR than with IMR.

AB - Coronary microvascular resistance is increasingly measured as a predictor of clinical outcomes, but there is no accepted gold-standard measurement. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of 2 invasive indices of microvascular resistance, Doppler-derived hyperemic microvascular resistance (hMR) and thermodilution-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), at predicting microvascular dysfunction. A total of 54 patients (61 ± 10 years) who underwent cardiac catheterization for stable coronary artery disease (n = 10) or acute myocardial infarction (n = 44) had simultaneous intracoronary pressure, Doppler flow velocity and thermodilution flow data acquired from 74 unobstructed vessels, at rest and during hyperemia. Three independent measurements of microvascular function were assessed, using predefined dichotomous thresholds: (1) coronary flow reserve (CFR), the average value of Doppler- and thermodilution-derived CFR; (2) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) derived myocardial perfusion reserve index; and (3) CMR-derived microvascular obstruction. hMR correlated with IMR (rho = 0.41, p <0.0001). hMR had better diagnostic accuracy than IMR to predict CFR (area under curve [AUC] 0.82 vs 0.58, p <0.001, sensitivity and specificity 77% and 77% vs 51% and 71%) and myocardial perfusion reserve index (AUC 0.85 vs 0.72, p = 0.19, sensitivity and specificity 82% and 80% vs 64% and 75%). In patients with acute myocardial infarction, the AUCs of hMR and IMR at predicting extensive microvascular obstruction were 0.83 and 0.72, respectively (p = 0.22, sensitivity and specificity 78% and 74% vs 44% and 91%). We conclude that these 2 invasive indices of coronary microvascular resistance only correlate modestly and so cannot be considered equivalent. In our study, the correlation between independent invasive and noninvasive measurements of microvascular function was better with hMR than with IMR.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85033597893&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.09.012

DO - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.09.012

M3 - Article

VL - 121

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - American Journal of Cardiology

JF - American Journal of Cardiology

SN - 0002-9149

IS - 1

ER -