PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
August 19, 2006AJP Heart and Circulatory Physiology25 citations

The diastolic flow velocity-pressure gradient relation and dpv50to assess the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses

View Full Paper
KMKoen MarquesMEMachiel J. van EenigeHSH.J. Spruijt

Structured PICO

Does the novel index dp(v50) improve diagnostic accuracy for assessing the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses compared to FFR and CFVR?

P
Population
77 patients with 124 coronary vessels with intermediate or severe stenosis (mean 39% SD 19 diameter stenosis). Ischemia was detected in 43 stenoses.
I
Intervention
dp(v50) measurement (pressure gradient at flow velocity of 50 cm/s derived from instantaneous flow velocity and pressure gradient)
C
Comparator
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR)
O
Outcome
Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) for detecting ischemia as determined by noninvasive stress testingsurrogate

The novel index dp(v50) provides higher sensitivity and accuracy than FFR and CFVR for assessing coronary stenosis significance and is independent of maximal hyperemia.

Abstract

To evaluate the hemodynamic impact of coronary stenoses, the fractional (FFR) or coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) usually is measured. The combined measurement of instantaneous flow velocity and pressure gradient (v-dp relation) is rarely used in humans. We derived from the v-dp relation a new index, dp(v50) (pressure gradient at flow velocity of 50 cm/s), and compared the diagnostic performance of dp(v50), CFVR, and FFR. Before coronary angiography was performed, patients underwent noninvasive stress testing. In all coronary vessels with an intermediate or severe stenosis, the flow velocity, aortic, and distal coronary pressure were measured simultaneously with a Doppler and pressure guidewire after induction of hyperemia. After regression analysis of all middiastolic flow velocity and pressure gradient data, the dp(v50) was calculated. With the use of the results of noninvasive stress testing, the dp(v50) cutoff value was established at 22.4 mmHg. In 77 patients, 124 coronary vessels with a mean 39% (SD 19) diameter stenosis were analyzed. In 43 stenoses, ischemia was detected. We found a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 56%, 86%, and 76% for CFVR; 77%, 99%, and 91% for FFR; and 95%, 95%, and 95% for dp(v50). To establish that dp(v50) is not dependent on maximal hyperemia, dp(v50) was recalculated after omission of the highest quartile of flow velocity data, showing a difference of 3%. We found that dp(v50) provided the highest sensitivity and accuracy compared with FFR and CFVR in the assessment of coronary stenoses. In contrast to CFVR and FFR, assessment of dp(v50) is not dependent on maximal hyperemia.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Marques et al. (2006) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a210669fd1130a429f65388https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00030.2006
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Slope of the instantaneous hyperemic diastolic coronary flow velocity-pressure relation. A new index for assessment of the physiological significance of coronary stenosis in humans.1994 · 79 citations
  2. 2Single-Wire Pressure and Flow Velocity Measurement to Quantify Coronary Stenosis Hemodynamics and Effects of Percutaneous Interventions2004 · 183 citations
  3. 3Functional diagnosis of coronary stenoses using pressure drop coefficient: A pilot study in humans2013 · 20 citations
  4. 4Simultaneous Coronary Pressure and Flow Velocity Measurements in Humans1996 · 456 citations
  5. 5Diagnostic cutoff for pressure drop coefficient in relation to fractional flow reserve and coronary flow reserve: A Patient‐Level Analysis2015 · 16 citations