Key result
Physiology-based calculation of partial myocardial mass strongly correlated with computed tomography-based mass (Spearman r=0.916, P<0.001) with a mean bias of 0.5 g.
Why the study?
In stable coronary artery disease, the amount of myocardium subtended by a stenosis determines prognosis and revascularization benefit, motivating a novel physiology-based method to estimate partial myocardial mass.
Can partial myocardial mass be accurately estimated using intracoronary physiology compared to computed tomography in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Observational (n=32)
Can partial myocardial mass be accurately estimated using intracoronary physiology compared to computed tomography in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Effect estimate: Spearman rank correlation coefficient 0.916
Absolute Event Rate: 15.8% vs 17%
p-value: p=<0.001
Physiology-based calculation of partial myocardial mass in the catheterization laboratory is feasible and correlates highly with CT-based measurements.
Background: In patients with stable coronary artery disease, the amount of myocardium subtended by coronary stenoses constitutes a major determinant of prognosis, as well as of the benefit of coronary revascularization. We devised a novel method to estimate partial myocardial mass (PMM; ie, the amount of myocardium subtended by a stenosis) during physiological stenosis interrogation. Subsequently, we validated the index against equivalent PMM values derived from applying the Voronoi algorithm on coronary computed tomography angiography. Methods: Based on the myocardial metabolic demand and blood supply, PMM was calculated as follows: PMM (g)=APV×D 2 ×π/(1.24×10 − 3 ×HR×sBP+1.6), where APV indicates average peak blood flow velocity; D, vessel diameter; HR, heart rate; and sBP, systolic blood pressure. We calculated PMM to 43 coronary vessels (32 patients) interrogated with pressure and Doppler guidewires, and compared it with computed tomography–based PMM. Results: Median PMM was 15.8 g (Q1, Q3: 11.7, 28.4 g) for physiology-based PMM, and 17.0 g (Q1, Q3: 12.5, 25.9 g) for computed tomography–based PMM ( P =0.84). Spearman rank correlation coefficient was 0.916 ( P <0.001), and Passing-Bablok analysis revealed absence of both constant and proportional differences (coefficient A: −0.9; 95% CI, −4.5 to 0.9; and coefficient B, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.25]. Bland-Altman analysis documented a mean bias of 0.5 g (limit of agreement: −9.1 to 10.2 g). Conclusions: Physiology-based calculation of PMM in the catheterization laboratory is feasible and can be accurately performed as part of functional stenosis assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Murai et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Stable coronary artery disease (n=32). Physiology-based calculation of partial myocardial mass (PMM) vs. Computed tomography-based PMM was evaluated on Partial myocardial mass (PMM) (Spearman rank correlation coefficient 0.916, p=<0.001). Physiology-based calculation of partial myocardial mass strongly correlated with computed tomography-based mass (Spearman r=0.916, P<0.001) with a mean bias of 0.5 g.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: