Angiography-based coronary microvascular assessment with and without intracoronary pressure measurements: a systematic review.
Angiographic microvascular assessment
Coronary blood flow
Coronary microvascular assessment
Coronary microvascular dysfunction
Index of microvascular resistance
Journal
Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society
ISSN: 1861-0692
Titre abrégé: Clin Res Cardiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101264123
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Nov 2023
21 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
18
08
2023
accepted:
30
10
2023
medline:
21
11
2023
pubmed:
21
11
2023
entrez:
21
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
In recent years, several indices have been proposed for quantifying coronary microvascular resistance. We intended to conduct a comprehensive review that systematically evaluates indices of microvascular resistance derived from angiography. The objective of this study was to identify and analyze angiography-derived indices of microvascular resistance that have been validated against an invasive reference method. We aimed to compare their limits of agreement with their reference methods and explore their advantages and inherent limitations. We searched PubMed from inception until 2022 for studies on different techniques for quantifying microvascular resistance. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies included techniques that applied calculations based solely on invasive angiography, and were validated against invasively measured thermodilution-derived index of microvascular resistance. The remaining two studies combined angiography with invasively measured intracoronary pressure data, and were validated against invasive Doppler measurements. We converted the ± 1.96 standard deviation limits of agreement with the reference method from the seven studies into percentages relative to the cut-off value of the reference method. The lower limits of agreement for angiography-based methods ranged from - 122 to - 60%, while the upper limits ranged from 74 to 135%. The range of the limits of agreement was considerably lower for the two combined angiography- and pressure-based methods, standing at - 52 to 60% and - 25 to 27%. Our findings suggest that combined angiography- and pressure-based methods provide a more reliable assessment of microvascular resistance compared to methods relying solely on angiography. Central illustration. Comparative assessment of image-based methods quantifying microvascular resistance with and without intracoronary pressure measurements. Angiography-based methods rely on angiography alone to calculate the microvascular resistance by utilizing angiographic frame counting to extrapolate coronary flow (Q) and subsequently deriving distal coronary pressure using fluid dynamic equations. Combined angiography- and pressure-based methods utilize invasive intracoronary pressure gradients measured during rest and maximal vasodilation to determine coronary flow in their calculation of microvascular resistance. The combined methods showed more acceptable levels of agreement with their reference methods compared to angiography-based methods alone.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In recent years, several indices have been proposed for quantifying coronary microvascular resistance. We intended to conduct a comprehensive review that systematically evaluates indices of microvascular resistance derived from angiography.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to identify and analyze angiography-derived indices of microvascular resistance that have been validated against an invasive reference method. We aimed to compare their limits of agreement with their reference methods and explore their advantages and inherent limitations.
METHODS AND RESULTS
RESULTS
We searched PubMed from inception until 2022 for studies on different techniques for quantifying microvascular resistance. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies included techniques that applied calculations based solely on invasive angiography, and were validated against invasively measured thermodilution-derived index of microvascular resistance. The remaining two studies combined angiography with invasively measured intracoronary pressure data, and were validated against invasive Doppler measurements. We converted the ± 1.96 standard deviation limits of agreement with the reference method from the seven studies into percentages relative to the cut-off value of the reference method. The lower limits of agreement for angiography-based methods ranged from - 122 to - 60%, while the upper limits ranged from 74 to 135%. The range of the limits of agreement was considerably lower for the two combined angiography- and pressure-based methods, standing at - 52 to 60% and - 25 to 27%.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that combined angiography- and pressure-based methods provide a more reliable assessment of microvascular resistance compared to methods relying solely on angiography. Central illustration. Comparative assessment of image-based methods quantifying microvascular resistance with and without intracoronary pressure measurements. Angiography-based methods rely on angiography alone to calculate the microvascular resistance by utilizing angiographic frame counting to extrapolate coronary flow (Q) and subsequently deriving distal coronary pressure using fluid dynamic equations. Combined angiography- and pressure-based methods utilize invasive intracoronary pressure gradients measured during rest and maximal vasodilation to determine coronary flow in their calculation of microvascular resistance. The combined methods showed more acceptable levels of agreement with their reference methods compared to angiography-based methods alone.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37987840
doi: 10.1007/s00392-023-02338-6
pii: 10.1007/s00392-023-02338-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Kunadian V, Chieffo A, Camici PG et al (2021) An EAPCI Expert Consensus Document on Ischaemia with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries in Collaboration with European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Coronary Pathophysiology & Microcirculation Endorsed by Coronary Vasomotor Disorders International Study Group. EuroIntervention 16(13):1049–1069. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJY20M07_01
doi: 10.4244/EIJY20M07_01
Suda A, Takahashi J, Hao K et al (2019) Coronary functional abnormalities in patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 74(19):2350–2360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.08.1056
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.08.1056
Cannon RO, Epstein SE (1988) “Microvascular angina” as a cause of chest pain with angiographically normal coronary arteries. Am J Cardiol 61(15):1338–1343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(88)91180-0
doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(88)91180-0
Kumar J, Kumar R, Armstrong R, Murphy R, Daly C (2021) 1 Incidence and prevalence of MINOCA (myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries) in STEMI patients: experience from Irish tertiary care centre. Heart 107(Suppl 2):A1–A2. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2021-ICS.1
doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2021-ICS.1
Knaapen P, Camici PG, Marques KM et al (2009) Coronary microvascular resistance: methods for its quantification in humans. Basic Res Cardiol 104(5):485–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00395-009-0037-z
doi: 10.1007/s00395-009-0037-z
Everaars H, de Waard GA, Driessen RS et al (2018) Doppler flow velocity and thermodilution to assess coronary flow reserve: a head-to-head comparison with [15O]H2O PET. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 11(20):2044–2054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2018.07.011
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.07.011
Fearon WF, Balsam LB, Farouque HMO et al (2003) Novel index for invasively assessing the coronary microcirculation. Circulation 107(25):3129–3132. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000080700.98607.D1
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000080700.98607.D1
De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Gallinoro E et al (2021) Microvascular resistance reserve for assessment of coronary microvascular function. J Am Coll Cardiol 78(15):1541–1549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.08.017
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.08.017
Knuuti J (2020) 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Russ J Cardiol 25(2):119–180. https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2020-2-3757
doi: 10.15829/1560-4071-2020-2-3757
Fearon WF, Low AF, Yong AS et al (2013) Prognostic value of the Index of Microcirculatory Resistance measured after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 127(24):2436–2441. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000298
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000298
Lee JM, Layland J, Jung JH et al (2015) Integrated physiologic assessment of ischemic heart disease in real-world practice using index of microcirculatory resistance and fractional flow reserve. Circ Cardiovasc Intervent. 8(11):e002857. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.002857
doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.002857
Ng MKC, Yeung AC, Fearon WF (2006) Invasive assessment of the coronary microcirculation: superior reproducibility and less hemodynamic dependence of index of microcirculatory resistance compared with coronary flow reserve. Circulation 113(17):2054–2061. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.603522
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.603522
Echavarría-Pinto M, van de Hoef TP, Nijjer S et al (2017) Influence of the amount of myocardium subtended to a coronary stenosis on the index of microcirculatory resistance Implications for the invasive assessment of microcirculatory function in ischaemic heart disease. EuroIntervention 13(8):944–952. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00525
doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00525
Geng Y, Wu X, Liu H, Zheng D, Xia L (2022) Index of microcirculatory resistance: state-of-the-art and potential applications in computational simulation of coronary artery disease. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 23(2):123–140. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B2100425
doi: 10.1631/jzus.B2100425
Shin D, Kim J, Choi KH et al (2022) Functional angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance validated with microvascular obstruction in cardiac magnetic resonance after STEMI. Rev Esp Cardiol 75(10):786–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2022.01.004
doi: 10.1016/j.rec.2022.01.004
Ai H, Feng Y, Gong Y et al (2020) Coronary Angiography-Derived Index of Microvascular Resistance. Front Physiol 11:605356. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.605356
doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.605356
Tebaldi M, Biscaglia S, Di Girolamo D et al (2020) Angio-based index of microcirculatory resistance for the assessment of the coronary resistance: a proof of concept study. J Interv Cardiol 2020:8887369. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8887369
doi: 10.1155/2020/8887369
De Maria GL, Scarsini R, Shanmuganathan M et al (2020) Angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance as a novel, pressure-wire-free tool to assess coronary microcirculation in ST elevation myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 36(8):1395–1406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-020-01831-7
doi: 10.1007/s10554-020-01831-7
Mejia-Renteria H, Lee JM, Choi KH et al (2021) Coronary microcirculation assessment using functional angiography: Development of a wire-free method applicable to conventional coronary angiograms. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 98(6):1027–1037. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29863
doi: 10.1002/ccd.29863
Jiang J, Li C, Hu Y et al (2022) A novel CFD-based computed index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) derived from coronary angiography to assess coronary microcirculation. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 221:106897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2022.106897
doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2022.106897
Morris PD, Gosling R, Zwierzak I et al (2021) A novel method for measuring absolute coronary blood flow and microvascular resistance in patients with ischaemic heart disease. Cardiovasc Res 117(6):1567–1577. https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvaa220
doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvaa220
Tar B, Ágoston A, Üveges Á et al (2022) Pressure- and 3D-derived coronary flow reserve with hydrostatic pressure correction: comparison with intracoronary Doppler measurements. JPM 12(5):780. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12050780
doi: 10.3390/jpm12050780
Tu S, Westra J, Yang J et al (2016) Diagnostic Accuracy of Fast Computational Approaches to Derive Fractional Flow Reserve From Diagnostic Coronary Angiography: The International Multicenter FAVOR Pilot Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 9(19):2024–2035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2016.07.013
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.07.013
Tu S, Barbato E, Köszegi Z et al (2014) Fractional flow reserve calculation from 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography and TIMI frame count: a fast computer model to quantify the functional significance of moderately obstructed coronary arteries. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 7(7):768–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2014.03.004
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.03.004
Sheng X, Qiao Z, Ge H et al (2020) Novel application of quantitative flow ratio for predicting microvascular dysfunction after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 95(S1):624–632. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28718
doi: 10.1002/ccd.28718
Scarsini R, Shanmuganathan M, Kotronias RA et al (2021) Angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (IMRangio) as a novel pressure-wire-free tool to assess coronary microvascular dysfunction in acute coronary syndromes and stable coronary artery disease. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 37(6):1801–1813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-021-02254-8
doi: 10.1007/s10554-021-02254-8
Brainin P, Frestad D, Prescott E (2018) The prognostic value of coronary endothelial and microvascular dysfunction in subjects with normal or non-obstructive coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 254:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.10.052
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.10.052
Lee BK, Lim HS, Fearon WF et al (2015) Invasive evaluation of patients with angina in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease. Circulation 131(12):1054–1060. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.012636
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.012636
Johnson NP, Kirkeeide RL, Gould KL (2012) Is discordance of coronary flow reserve and fractional flow reserve due to methodology or clinically relevant coronary pathophysiology? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 5(2):193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2011.09.020
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2011.09.020
Tavella R, Cutri N, Tucker G, Adams R, Spertus J, Beltrame JF (2016) Natural history of patients with insignificant coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes 2(2):117–124. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcv034
doi: 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcv034
Galiuto L, De Caterina AR, Porfidia A et al (2010) Reversible coronary microvascular dysfunction: a common pathogenetic mechanism in Apical Ballooning or Tako-Tsubo Syndrome. Eur Heart J 31(11):1319–1327. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehq039
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq039
Karaca Ü, Schram MT, Houben AJHM, Muris DMJ, Stehouwer CDA (2014) Microvascular dysfunction as a link between obesity, insulin resistance and hypertension. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 103(3):382–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2013.12.012
doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2013.12.012
Lowenstein CJ, Solomon SD (2020) Severe COVID-19 is a microvascular disease. Circulation 142(17):1609–1611. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.050354
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.050354
Castelli R, Gidaro A (2020) Abnormal hemostatic parameters and risk of thromboembolism among patients with COVID-19 Infection. J Hematol 9(1–2):1–4. https://doi.org/10.14740/jh636
doi: 10.14740/jh636
Jafari-Oori M, Moradian ST, Ebadi A, Jafari M, Dehi M (2022) Incidence of cardiac complications following COVID-19 infection: an umbrella meta-analysis study. Heart Lung 52:136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2022.01.001
doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2022.01.001
Rovas A, Osiaevi I, Buscher K et al (2021) Microvascular dysfunction in COVID-19: the MYSTIC study. Angiogenesis 24(1):145–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10456-020-09753-7
doi: 10.1007/s10456-020-09753-7
Charfeddine S, Amor HIH, Jdidi J et al (2021) Long COVID 19 syndrome: is it related to microcirculation and endothelial dysfunction? Insights From TUN-EndCOV study. Front Cardiovasc Med. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.745758
doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.745758
Shimokawa H, Suda A, Takahashi J et al (2021) Clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with microvascular angina: an international and prospective cohort study by the Coronary Vasomotor Disorders International Study (COVADIS) Group. Eur Heart J 42(44):4592–4600. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab282
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab282
Fernández-Peregrina E, Garcia-Garcia HM, Sans-Rosello J et al (2022) Angiography-derived versus invasively-determined index of microcirculatory resistance in the assessment of coronary microcirculation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cathet Cardio Intervent 99(7):2018–2025. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30174
doi: 10.1002/ccd.30174
Morris PD, Curzen N, Gunn JP (2020) Angiography-derived fractional flow reserve: more or less physiology? JAHA 9(6):e015586. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.015586
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.015586
Lee KY, Hwang BH, Kim MJ et al (2021) Influence of lesion and disease subsets on the diagnostic performance of the quantitative flow ratio in real-world patients. Sci Rep 11(1):2995. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82235-y
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82235-y
Tar B, Jenei C, Üveges Á et al (2021) Hyperemic contrast velocity assessment improves accuracy of the image-based fractional flow reserve calculation. Cardiol J 28(1):163–165. https://doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2020.0144
doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2020.0144
Meuwissen M, Chamuleau SAJ, Siebes M et al (2001) Role of variability in microvascular resistance on fractional flow reserve and coronary blood flow velocity reserve in intermediate coronary lesions. Circulation 103(2):184–187. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.103.2.184
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.103.2.184
Chamuleau SAJ, Siebes M, Meuwissen M, Koch KT, Spaan JAE, Piek JJ (2003) Association between coronary lesion severity and distal microvascular resistance in patients with coronary artery disease. Am J Physiol Heart Circul Physiol 285(5):H2194–H2200. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.01021.2002
doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.01021.2002
Lee SH, Lee JM, Park J et al (2020) Prognostic implications of resistive reserve ratio in patients with coronary artery disease. JAHA 9(8):e015846. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.015846
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.015846
Maznyczka AM, Oldroyd KG, Greenwood JP et al (2020) Comparative significance of invasive measures of microvascular injury in acute myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 13(5):e008505. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008505
doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008505
Toya T, Ahmad A, Corban MT et al (2021) Risk stratification of patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease using resistive reserve ratio. JAHA 10(11):e020464. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.020464
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.020464
Härle T, Luz M, Meyer S et al (2017) Effect of coronary anatomy and hydrostatic pressure on intracoronary indices of stenosis severity. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 10(8):764–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2016.12.024
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.12.024
Kawaguchi Y, Ito K, Kin H et al (2019) Impact of hydrostatic pressure variations caused by height differences in supine and prone positions on fractional flow reserve values in the coronary circulation. J Interv Cardiol 2019:4532862. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4532862
doi: 10.1155/2019/4532862
Üveges Á, Tar B, Jenei C et al (2021) The impact of hydrostatic pressure on the result of physiological measurements in various coronary segments. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 37(1):5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-020-01971-w
doi: 10.1007/s10554-020-01971-w
Mohri M, Koyanagi M, Egashira K et al (1998) Angina pectoris caused by coronary microvascular spasm. Lancet 351(9110):1165–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)07329-7
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)07329-7
Ford TJ, Stanley B, Good R et al (2018) Stratified medical therapy using invasive coronary function testing in angina. J Am Coll Cardiol 72(23):2841–2855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.006
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.006
Kunadian V, Raharjo DR (2022) Breaking down the barriers in the management of INOCA: how can we do better in the diagnosis of coronary vasomotor disorders? EuroIntervention 17(15):1201–1203. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-E-21-00008
doi: 10.4244/EIJ-E-21-00008