Does relative flow velocity reserve (RFVR) correlate with fractional flow reserve (FFR) for the functional assessment of coronary stenosis severity?
Relative flow velocity reserve (RFVR) correlates closely with pressure-based FFR, offering a promising Doppler-based alternative for assessing coronary stenosis severity.
BACKGROUND: Myocardial fractional flow reserve (FFR) is based on pressure measurements. We have now sought to establish a Doppler-based concept of relative flow velocity reserve (RFVR) for the functional assessment of stenosis severity in epicardial coronary arteries. A clear threshold value to discriminate the functional severity of a coronary stenosis does not exist for coronary flow velocity reserve (CVR) based on intracoronary Doppler measurements. In contrast, the concept of FFR, which is based on intracoronary pressure measurements, has been extensively validated. An FFR value below 0.75 reliably indicates a significant stenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: RFVR is calculated as the ratio between distal CVR in the stenosed target vessel and distal CVR in a nonstenotic reference vessel. In 21 patients, RFVR was determined in 24 target vessels by use of intracoronary adenosine and correlated to the FFR, determined as the ratio of mean poststenotic to aortic pressures, in the target vessel. Stenosis severity was classified according to quantitative coronary angiography analysis. Reference diameter was 3.0+/-0.4 mm (mean+/-SD), and area stenosis was 74+/-15% (range, 40% to 95%). CVRs in the target and reference vessels were 2.1+/-0.5 and 2.6+/-0.7, respectively. FFR ranged from 0.49 to 0.99 (mean, 0.81+/-0.15) and RFVR from 0.53 to 1.0 (mean, 0.82+/-0.13). Poststenotic CVR did not correlate with either percent area stenosis (r=0.27, P=NS) or FFR (r=0.33, P=NS). In contrast, FFR as well as RFVR showed a curvilinear relation to percent area stenosis (r=0.89, P<0.0001 and r=0.79, P<0.0001, respectively). There was a close linear correlation between FFR and RFVR (r=0.91, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: RFVR correlates closely to FFR and to percent area stenosis, whereas the correlation of CVR with FFR and percent area stenosis is rather poor. RFVR is a promising new concept for assessment of coronary stenosis severity and clinical decision making based on Doppler measurements.
Baumgart et al. (Tue,) studied this question.