Basal stenosis resistance index derived from simultaneous pressure and flow velocity measurements

AIMS: Vasodilator-free basal stenosis resistance (BSR) equals fractional flow reserve (FFR) accuracy for ischaemia-inducing stenoses. Nonetheless, basal haemodynamic variability may impair BSR accuracy compared with hyperaemic stenosis resistance (HSR). We evaluated the influence of basal haemodynamic variability, as encountered in practice, on BSR accuracy versus HSR when derived from simultaneous pressure and flow velocity measurements, and determined its diagnostic performance for HSR-defined significant stenoses. METHODS AND RESULTS: Simultaneous coronary pressure and flow velocity were obtained in 131 stenoses. The impact of basal haemodynamic conditions on BSR was evaluated by means of their relationship with the relative difference between BSR and HSR. Diagnostic performance of BSR, FFR, iFR, and resting Pd/Pa was assessed by comparing the area under the curve (AUC), using HSR as reference standard. The relative difference between BSR and HSR was not associated with basal heart rate, aortic pressure or rate pressure product. Among all stenoses, as well as within the 0.6-0.9 FFR range, BSR AUC was significantly greater than resting Pd/Pa and iFR AUC; all other AUCs were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: With simultaneous pressure and flow velocity measurements, basal conditions do not systematically limit BSR accuracy compared with HSR. Consequently, diagnostic performance of BSR is equivalent to FFR, and closely approximates HSR.