Minimal coronary microvascular resistance: agreement between continuous and bolus thermodilution
T Mahendiran,D Keulards,N Pijls,M Viscusi,E Gallinoro,D Bertolone,N Van Royen,C Collet,P Knaapen,B De Bruyne
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.1281
IF: 39.3
2024-10-28
European Heart Journal
Abstract:Background Continuous thermodilution quantifies absolute microvascular resistance (Rμ, Woods units), the quintessential metric of microvascular function. Rμ is minimal during hyperaemia (Rμ,hyper) with increased Rμ,hyper suggestive of microvascular dysfunction. Bolus thermodilution measures the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), a dimensionless surrogate of Rμ,hyper. Purpose We compared Rμ,hyper measured by continuous thermodilution (invasive Rμ,hyper) with the gold standard [15O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET Rμ,hyper), and explored the correlation between invasive Rμ,hyper and uncorrected IMR. Methods The accuracy of invasive Rμ,hyper was assessed in a cohort of 24 patients in which both invasive and PET Rμ,hyper were measured (cohort 1). For both techniques, Rμ,hyper was assessed in both the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and the circumflex artery (LCX), corresponding to 46 measurement of Rμ,hyper in total (LAD=24, LCX=22). Agreement between invasive Rμ,hyper and IMR was evaluated in a cohort of 250 patients with angina and non-obstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA) evaluated in 3 European centres (cohort 2). All measurements in this cohort were performed in the LAD, with patients randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either bolus or continuous thermodilution first. Both techniques were performed by the same operator during the same procedure with a strict interval of 5 minutes between techniques. Results In cohort 1, invasive Rμ,hyper exhibited a strong correlation with PET Rμ,hyper (r=0.86 [95% CI 0.76-0.92], p<0.001), with excellent absolute agreement (ICC 0.82 [95% CI 0.70-0.90], p<0.001) (Figure 1). Furthermore, Passing-Bablok regression analysis found no significant systematic (intercept A: 54.53 [95% CI -18.95 to 120.96]) or proportional (slope B: 0.90 [95% CI 0.71 to 1.15]) bias between invasive Rμ,hyper and PET Rμ,hyper. However, in cohort 2, invasive Rμ,hyper exhibited no significant correlation with IMR (r=0.11 [95% CI -0.01 to 0.23], p=0.08) (Figure 2). Conclusion Invasive Rμ,hyper derived from continuous thermodilution exhibited excellent agreement with non-invasive Rμ,hyper measured by [15O]H2O PET, the current standard of reference. However, IMR exhibited no significant correlation with invasive Rμ,hyper in patients with stable coronary syndromes.Figure 1.PET vs invasive Rμ,hyperFigure 2.Invasive Rμ,hyper vs IMR
cardiac & cardiovascular systems