MacCarthy Philip, Berger Alexandre, Manoharan Ganesh, Bartunek Jozef, Barbato Emanuele, Wijns William, Heyndrickx Guy R, Pijls Nico H J, De Bruyne Bernard
Cardiovascular Center, OLV Clinic, Aalst, Belgium.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Jan 18;45(2):216-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.09.063.
We aimed to validate the technique of measuring the coronary flow reserve (CFR) with coronary pressure measurements against an established thermodilution technique.
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.
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.
There is a close linear relationship between pressure-derived and thermodilution CFR in native (r(2) = 0.52; p < 0.001) and artificial stenoses (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.
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.
我们旨在通过冠状动脉压力测量来验证测量冠状动脉血流储备(CFR)的技术,并与既定的热稀释技术进行对比。
传统上,CFR需要使用多普勒导丝测量冠状动脉血流速度,最近则是使用冠状动脉压力导丝的热稀释技术。然而,最近的研究表明,CFR可能仅从压力测量得出(充血时跨心外膜狭窄的压力降平方根与静息时该值的比值)。这取决于冠状动脉狭窄处的摩擦损失可忽略不计这一假设。
我们在34例接受经皮介入治疗的严重冠状动脉狭窄患者的38处狭窄病变中,将压力衍生的CFR值与使用冠状动脉内压力导丝的热稀释技术所获得的值进行比较。我们还在经皮介入治疗后通过在支架冠状动脉内充入小气球人为制造的25处狭窄病变(6支血管)中比较了这两种测量CFR的技术。
在天然狭窄(r² = 0.52;p < 0.001)和人工狭窄(r² = 0.54;p < 0.05)中,压力衍生的CFR与热稀释CFR之间存在密切的线性关系,尽管在两种情况下压力衍生技术似乎都系统性地低估了CFR值。这适用于天然和人工狭窄。
冠状动脉血流储备不能仅通过压力来测量,并且不能安全地假定天然冠状动脉狭窄处的摩擦损失可忽略不计。这些数据表明,摩擦损失是沿动脉粥样硬化冠状动脉压力梯度的一个重要决定因素。