Key result
Coronary flow velocity reserve by echocardiography was highly feasible (97%) and demonstrated acceptable agreement with PET myocardial flow reserve in overweight and obese patients with stable coronary artery disease.
Why the study?
Is CFVR measured by echocardiography feasible, reproducible, and in agreement with PET MFR in overweight and obese patients with revascularized CAD?
Observational (n=86)
Single-blind
No
Is CFVR measured by echocardiography feasible, reproducible, and in agreement with PET MFR in overweight and obese patients with revascularized CAD?
CFVR by echocardiography is a feasible and reproducible tool for assessing microvascular function that shows acceptable agreement with PET in overweight and obese patients with revascularized CAD.
Supports CFVR echocardiography as a feasible microvascular tool in obese CAD; leaves open prospective outcome validation before clinical use.
BACKGROUND: Coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) measured by transthoracic Doppler echocardiography of the LAD is used to assess microvascular function but validation studies in clinical settings are lacking. We aimed to assess feasibility, reproducibility and agreement with myocardial flow reserve (MFR) measured by PET in overweight and obese patients. METHODS: Participants with revascularized coronary artery disease were examined by CFVR. Subgroups were examined by repeated CFVR (reproducibility) or Rubidium-82-PET (agreement). To account for time variation, results were computed for scans performed within a week (1-week) and for all scans regardless of time gap (total) and to account for scar tissue for patients with and without previous myocardial infarction (MI). RESULTS: Eighty-six patients with median BMI 30.9 (IQR 29.4-32.9) kg × m(-2) and CFVR 2.29 (1.90-2.63) were included. CFVR was feasible in 83 (97 %) using a contrast agent in 14 %. For reproducibility overall (n = 21) limits of agreement (LOA) were (-0.75;0.71), within-subjects coefficient of variation (CV) 11 %, and reliability 0.84. For reproducibility within 1-week (n = 13) LOA were (-0.33;0.25), within-subjects CV 5 %, and reliability 0.97. Agreement with MFR of the LAD territory (n = 35) was without significant bias and overall LOA were (-1.40;1.46). Agreement was best for examinations performed within 1-week of participants without MI of the LAD-territory (n = 12); LOA = (-0.68;0.88). CONCLUSIONS: CFVR was highly feasible with a good reproducibility on par with other contemporary measures applied in cardiology. Agreement with MFR was acceptable, though discrepancy related to prior MI has to be considered. CFVR of LAD is a valid tool in overweight and obese patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Olsen et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Stable and revascularized coronary artery disease in overweight and obese patients (n=86). Coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) by echocardiography vs. Myocardial flow reserve (MFR) by PET was evaluated on Feasibility of CFVR measurement. Coronary flow velocity reserve by echocardiography was highly feasible (97%) and demonstrated acceptable agreement with PET myocardial flow reserve in overweight and obese patients with stable coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: