The influence of epicardial resistance on Microvascular Resistance Reserve (MRR)

Abstract Background The optimal index of microvascular function should be specific for the microvascular compartment. Yet, coronary flow reserve (CFR), despite being widely used to diagnose coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD), is influenced by both epicardial and microvascular resistance. Conversely, microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) adjusts for fractional flow reserve (FFR), and thus is theoretically independent of epicardial resistance. Purpose We tested the hypothesis that MRR, unlike CFR, is not influenced by increasing epicardial resistance, and thus is a more specific index of microvascular function. Methods In a cohort of 16 patients that had undergone proximal left anterior descending artery stenting, we created four grades of artificial stenosis (no stenosis, mild, moderate, and severe) using a coronary angioplasty balloon inflated to different degrees within the stent. For each stenosis grade, we calculated CFR and MRR using continuous thermodilution (64 measurements of each) in order to assess their response to changing epicardial resistance. Results Graded balloon inflation resulted in a significant sequential decrease in mean FFR (no stenosis: 0.82 ±0.05; mild: 0.72 ±0.04; moderate: 0.61 ±0.05; severe: 0.48 ±0.09, p<0.001). This translated into a linear decrease in mean hyperaemic coronary flow (no stenosis: 170.5 ±66.8 ml/min; mild: 149.8 ±58.8 ml/min; moderate: 124.4 ±53.0 ml/min; severe: 94.0 ±45.2 ml/min, p<0.001) (Figure 1). CFR exhibited a marked linear decrease with increasing stenosis (no stenosis: 2.5 ±0.9; mild: 2.2 ±0.8; moderate: 1.8 ±0.7; severe: 1.4 ±0.6), corresponding to a decrease of 0.3 for a decrease in FFR of 0.1 (p<0.001). Conversely, MRR exhibited a minimal decrease across all stenosis grades (no stenosis: 3.0 ±1.0; mild: 3.0 ±1.0; moderate: 2.9 ±1.0; severe: 2.8 ±1.0), corresponding to a decrease of just 0.05 for a decrease in FFR of 0.1 (p<0.001) (Figure 1). Conclusion MRR, unlike CFR, is minimally influenced by epicardial resistance, and thus should be considered the most specific index of microvascular function.Figure 1.Absolute blood flow (Q) vs FFRFigure 2.MRR/CFR vs FFR

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Heart Journal
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.1282
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Cardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.40
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The influence of epicardial resistance on Microvascular Resistance Reserve (MRR)

Carlos Collet, Emanuele Gallinoro, Dario Tino Bertolone, Nico H.J. Pijls et al.
1 citations
European Heart Journal
Cardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
0.40
article

The influence of epicardial resistance on Microvascular Resistance Reserve (MRR)

Carlos Collet, Emanuele Gallinoro, Dario Tino Bertolone, Nico H.J. Pijls, Jeroen Sonck, Frédéric Bouisset, Bernard De Bruyne, Michele Mattia Viscusi, Takuya Mizukami, Thabo Mahendiran
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background The optimal index of microvascular function should be specific for the microvascular compartment. Yet, coronary flow reserve (CFR), despite being widely used to diagnose coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD), is influenced by both epicardial and microvascular resistance. Conversely, microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) adjusts for fractional flow reserve (FFR), and thus is theoretically independent of epicardial resistance. Purpose We tested the hypothesis that MRR, unlike CFR, is not influenced by increasing epicardial resistance, and thus is a more specific index of microvascular function. Methods In a cohort of 16 patients that had undergone proximal left anterior descending artery stenting, we created four grades of artificial stenosis (no stenosis, mild, moderate, and severe) using a coronary angioplasty balloon inflated to different degrees within the stent. For each stenosis grade, we calculated CFR and MRR using continuous thermodilution (64 measurements of each) in order to assess their response to changing epicardial resistance. Results Graded balloon inflation resulted in a significant sequential decrease in mean FFR (no stenosis: 0.82 ±0.05; mild: 0.72 ±0.04; moderate: 0.61 ±0.05; severe: 0.48 ±0.09, p<0.001). This translated into a linear decrease in mean hyperaemic coronary flow (no stenosis: 170.5 ±66.8 ml/min; mild: 149.8 ±58.8 ml/min; moderate: 124.4 ±53.0 ml/min; severe: 94.0 ±45.2 ml/min, p<0.001) (Figure 1). CFR exhibited a marked linear decrease with increasing stenosis (no stenosis: 2.5 ±0.9; mild: 2.2 ±0.8; moderate: 1.8 ±0.7; severe: 1.4 ±0.6), corresponding to a decrease of 0.3 for a decrease in FFR of 0.1 (p<0.001). Conversely, MRR exhibited a minimal decrease across all stenosis grades (no stenosis: 3.0 ±1.0; mild: 3.0 ±1.0; moderate: 2.9 ±1.0; severe: 2.8 ±1.0), corresponding to a decrease of just 0.05 for a decrease in FFR of 0.1 (p<0.001) (Figure 1). Conclusion MRR, unlike CFR, is minimally influenced by epicardial resistance, and thus should be considered the most specific index of microvascular function.Figure 1.Absolute blood flow (Q) vs FFRFigure 2.MRR/CFR vs FFR

European Heart JournalVol. 45(Supplement_1)
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL), Catharina Ziekenhuis (NL), Cardiovascular Research Center (BR)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 32%
Cardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
0.40
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.