Key result
Automated continuous intracoronary thermodilution closely matches conventional MRR assessment while shortening procedural time.
Why the study?
Continuous intracoronary thermodilution conventionally requires arterial reinstrumentation and manual pump reprogramming; an automated method was developed to simplify and render the procedure operator-independent.
Does an automated procedure for continuous intracoronary thermodilution maintain measurement accuracy and reduce procedural time compared to the conventional method in patients undergoing coronary physiological assessment?
Does an automated procedure for continuous intracoronary thermodilution maintain measurement accuracy and reduce procedural time compared to the conventional method in patients undergoing coronary physiological assessment?
Automating the intracoronary continuous thermodilution procedure simplifies coronary physiological assessment and significantly reduces procedural time without compromising diagnostic accuracy.
May shorten MRR assessment time with preserved correlation; leaves open larger validation and outcome impact in microvascular dysfunction.
Aim Microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) as derived from continuous intracoronary thermodilution specifically quantifies microvasculature function. As originally described, the technique necessitates reinstrumentation of the artery and manual reprogramming of the infusion pump when performing resting and hyperemic measurements. To simplify and to render this procedure operator‐independent, we developed a fully automated method. The aim of the present study is to validate the automated procedure against the originally described one. Methods and Results For the automated procedure, an infusion pump was preprogrammed to allow paired resting‐hyperemic thermodilution assessment without interruption. To validate the accuracy of this new approach, 20 automated measurements were compared to those obtained in the same vessels with conventional paired resting‐hyperemic thermodilution measurements (i.e., with a sensor pullback at each infusion rate and manual reprogramming of the infusion pump). A close correlation between the conventional and the automated measuring technique was found for resting flow (Q rest : r = 0.89, mean bias = 2.52; SD = 15.47), hyperemic flow (Q hyper : r = 0.88, mean bias = −2.65; SD = 27.96), resting microvascular resistance (R μ ‐ rest : r = 0.90, mean bias = 52.14; SD = 228.29), hyperemic microvascular resistance R μ ‐ hyper : r = 0.92, mean bias = 12.95; SD = 57.80), and MRR (MRR: r = 0.89, mean bias = 0.04, SD = 0.59). Procedural time was significantly shorter with the automated method (5′25″ ± 1′23″ vs. 4′36″ ± 0′33″, p = 0.013). Conclusion Continuous intracoronary thermodilution‐derived measurements of absolute flow, absolute resistance, and MRR can be fully automated. This further shortens and simplifies the procedure when performing paired resting‐hyperemic measurements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Candreva et al. (2022) studied Coronary artery disease requiring physiological assessment (n=19). Automated continuous intracoronary thermodilution vs. Conventional continuous intracoronary thermodilution was evaluated on Microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) (r = 0.89). The automated continuous intracoronary thermodilution method demonstrated a close correlation with the conventional technique for microvascular resistance reserve (r=0.89) while significantly shortening procedural time (4'36" vs 5'25", p=0.013).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: