Coronary flow characteristics in cases with discordance between coronary flow reserve and the index of microvascular resistance in the assessment of coronary microvascular dysfunction

Abstract Background/Introduction Coronary flow reserve (CFR) and the index of microvascular resistance (IMR) are commonly used for the diagnosis of coronary microvascular dysfunction, but the two indices can reveal discordance. Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the mechanisms of the discordance between CFR and IMR. Methods Haemodynamic data from patients who underwent invasive coronary functional assessment using a guidewire equipped with pressure and temperature sensors was analysed. We performed vessel-based analysis, and classified vessels with reference to the criteria of IMR ≥25 and CFR <2.0 as pathological into four groups: normal IMR/normal CFR (Group 1: G1), abnormal IMR/normal CFR (Group 2: G2), normal IMR/abnormal CFR (Group 3: G3), and abnormal IMR/abnormal CFR (Group 4: G4). Results Of 249 vessels form 176 patients, 82 (33%) were classified into G1, 28 (11%) into G2, 94 (38%) into G3, and 45 (18%) into G4. Median and interquartile ranges of IMR of the four groups were 14.3 [10.7–18.9], 34.2 [29.8–45.1], 16.9 [12.7–19.7], and 30.7 [28.4–43.5] (P <0.001), respectively, and those of CFR were 3.21 [2.48–4.29], 2.73 [2.34–3.03], 1.27 [1.06–1.55], and 1.28 [1.07–1.67] (P <0.001), respectively (Figure). In G2, hyperemic flow velocity was as low as G4 (1.97 [1.47–2.29] vs. 1.95 [1.41–2.50] sec-1, P=1.00), and the baseline flow velocity was lower than G4 (0.71 [0.49–0.85] vs. 1.44 [0.93–1.96] sec-1, P <0.001), leading to apparently normal CFR despite the diminished hyperemic flow. In G3, the hyperemic (3.60 [2.77–4.73] vs. 1.95 [1.41–2.50] sec-1, P <0.001) and the baseline flow velocity (2.85 [2.19–3.92] vs. 1.44 [0.93–1.96] sec-1, P <0.001) were higher than G4, leading to apparently decreased CFR despite the maintained hyperemic flow. Conclusion(s) The discordance between IMR and CFR can be explained by decreased coronary flow in abnormal IMR/normal CFR, and by increased baseline coronary flow in normal IMR/abnormal CFR.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Heart Journal
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.1270
Primary Topic
Cardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Coronary flow characteristics in cases with discordance between coronary flow reserve and the index of microvascular resistance in the assessment of coronary microvascular dysfunction

Natsuki Higashimoto, Akira Taruya, Jiro Takeda, Y. Ozaki et al.
European Heart Journal
Cardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
article

Coronary flow characteristics in cases with discordance between coronary flow reserve and the index of microvascular resistance in the assessment of coronary microvascular dysfunction

Natsuki Higashimoto, Akira Taruya, Jiro Takeda, Y. Ozaki, Takuya Wada, Yasutsugu Shiono, Masahiro Takahata, Hironori Kitabata, Atushi Tanaka, Misako Taniguchi, R. S. Hikida
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background/Introduction Coronary flow reserve (CFR) and the index of microvascular resistance (IMR) are commonly used for the diagnosis of coronary microvascular dysfunction, but the two indices can reveal discordance. Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the mechanisms of the discordance between CFR and IMR. Methods Haemodynamic data from patients who underwent invasive coronary functional assessment using a guidewire equipped with pressure and temperature sensors was analysed. We performed vessel-based analysis, and classified vessels with reference to the criteria of IMR ≥25 and CFR <2.0 as pathological into four groups: normal IMR/normal CFR (Group 1: G1), abnormal IMR/normal CFR (Group 2: G2), normal IMR/abnormal CFR (Group 3: G3), and abnormal IMR/abnormal CFR (Group 4: G4). Results Of 249 vessels form 176 patients, 82 (33%) were classified into G1, 28 (11%) into G2, 94 (38%) into G3, and 45 (18%) into G4. Median and interquartile ranges of IMR of the four groups were 14.3 [10.7–18.9], 34.2 [29.8–45.1], 16.9 [12.7–19.7], and 30.7 [28.4–43.5] (P <0.001), respectively, and those of CFR were 3.21 [2.48–4.29], 2.73 [2.34–3.03], 1.27 [1.06–1.55], and 1.28 [1.07–1.67] (P <0.001), respectively (Figure). In G2, hyperemic flow velocity was as low as G4 (1.97 [1.47–2.29] vs. 1.95 [1.41–2.50] sec-1, P=1.00), and the baseline flow velocity was lower than G4 (0.71 [0.49–0.85] vs. 1.44 [0.93–1.96] sec-1, P <0.001), leading to apparently normal CFR despite the diminished hyperemic flow. In G3, the hyperemic (3.60 [2.77–4.73] vs. 1.95 [1.41–2.50] sec-1, P <0.001) and the baseline flow velocity (2.85 [2.19–3.92] vs. 1.44 [0.93–1.96] sec-1, P <0.001) were higher than G4, leading to apparently decreased CFR despite the maintained hyperemic flow. Conclusion(s) The discordance between IMR and CFR can be explained by decreased coronary flow in abnormal IMR/normal CFR, and by increased baseline coronary flow in normal IMR/abnormal CFR.

European Heart JournalVol. 45(Supplement_1)
Wakayama Medical University (JP)
Openalex Percentile: Top 67%
Cardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
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.