Jukema Ruurt A, Raijmakers Pieter G, Hoshino Masahiro, Driessen Roel S, van Diemen Pepijn A, Knuuti Juhani, Maaniitty Teemu, Twisk Jos, Kooistra Rolf A, Timmer Janny, Reiber Johan H C, van der Harst Pim, Cramer Maarten J, van der Hoef Tim, Knaapen Paul, Danad Ibrahim
Departments of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & PET Research, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2025 Jan;41(1):37-46. doi: 10.1007/s10554-024-03279-5. Epub 2024 Dec 9.
The introduction of wire-free microcirculatory resistance index from functional angiography (angio-IMR) promises swift detection of coronary microvascular dysfunction, however it has not been properly validated. We sought to validate angio-IMR against invasive IMR and PET derived microvascular resistance (MVR). Moreover, we studied if angio-IMR could aid in the detection of ischemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA). In this investigator-initiated study symptomatic patients underwent [O]HO positron emission tomography (PET) and invasive angiography with 3-vessel fractional flow reserve (FFR). Invasive IMR was measured in 40 patients. Angio-IMR and QFR were computed retrospectively. MVR was defined as the ratio of mean distal coronary pressure to PET derived coronary flow. PET and QFR/angio-IMR analyses were performed by blinded core labs. The right coronary artery was excluded. A total of 211 patients (mean age 61 ± 9, 148 (70%) male) with 312 vessels with successful angio-IMR analyses were included. Angio-IMR correlated moderately with invasive IMR (r = 0.48, p < 0.01), whereas no correlation was found between angio-IMR and MVR (r=-0.07, p = 0.25). Angio-IMR did not differ for vessels without obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) (FFR-) but with reduced stress perfusion (PET+) compared to vessels without obstructive CAD (FFR-) with normal stress perfusion (PET-) (median 28.19 IQR 20.42-38.99 vs. 31.67 IQR 23.47-40.63, p = 0.40). Angio-IMR correlated moderately with invasively measured IMR, whereas angio-IMR did not correlate with PET derived MVR. Moreover, angio-IMR did not reliably identify patients with INOCA.
功能血管造影术(血管内微循环阻力指数,angio-IMR)的引入有望快速检测冠状动脉微血管功能障碍,但尚未得到充分验证。我们试图验证血管内微循环阻力指数(angio-IMR)与有创微循环阻力指数(IMR)以及正电子发射断层扫描(PET)得出的微血管阻力(MVR)之间的关系。此外,我们研究了血管内微循环阻力指数(angio-IMR)是否有助于检测非阻塞性冠状动脉疾病(INOCA)患者的心肌缺血情况。在这项由研究者发起的研究中,有症状的患者接受了[O]HO正电子发射断层扫描(PET)和具有三支血管血流储备分数(FFR)的有创血管造影检查。对40例患者测量了有创微循环阻力指数(IMR)。血管内微循环阻力指数(angio-IMR)和定量血流分数(QFR)进行回顾性计算。微血管阻力(MVR)定义为平均冠状动脉远端压力与PET得出的冠状动脉血流之比。PET和QFR/血管内微循环阻力指数(angio-IMR)分析由独立的核心实验室进行。右冠状动脉被排除在外。总共纳入了211例患者(平均年龄61±9岁,148例(70%)为男性),其312支血管成功进行了血管内微循环阻力指数(angio-IMR)分析。血管内微循环阻力指数(angio-IMR)与有创微循环阻力指数(IMR)呈中度相关(r = 0.48,p < 0.01),而血管内微循环阻力指数(angio-IMR)与微血管阻力(MVR)之间未发现相关性(r = -0.07,p = 0.25)。与无阻塞性冠状动脉疾病(CAD)(FFR-)且静息灌注正常(PET-)的血管相比,无阻塞性冠状动脉疾病(CAD)(FFR-)但静息灌注降低(PET+)的血管的血管内微循环阻力指数(angio-IMR)无差异(中位数28.19,四分位间距20.42 - 38.99 vs. 31.67,四分位间距23.47 - 40.63,p = 0.40)。血管内微循环阻力指数(angio-IMR)与有创测量的微循环阻力指数(IMR)呈中度相关,而血管内微循环阻力指数(angio-IMR)与PET得出的微血管阻力(MVR)不相关。此外,血管内微循环阻力指数(angio-IMR)不能可靠地识别非阻塞性冠状动脉疾病(INOCA)患者。