Premium
In vitro test–retest repeatability of invasive physiological indices to assess coronary flow
Author(s) -
Picard Fabien,
Alansari Omar,
Mogi Satoshi,
van't Veer Marcel,
Varenne Olivier,
Adjedj Julien
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.28177
Subject(s) - repeatability , fractional flow reserve , medicine , coronary flow reserve , reproducibility , reliability (semiconductor) , cardiology , blood flow , coronary angiography , statistics , mathematics , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics , myocardial infarction
Aims Several invasive techniques are available in clinical practice to assess coronary flow. Nevertheless, the test–retest repeatability of these techniques in a controlled setting has not been reported. Therefore, we sought to evaluate fractional flow reserve (FFR), coronary flow reserve (CFR), index of microvascular resistance (IMR), and absolute coronary blood flow (ABF) with absolute microvascular resistance (AMR) test–retest repeatability using a coronary flow simulator. Methods and Results Using a coronary flow simulator (FFR WetLab version 2.0; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA), we created stenoses ranging from 0% to 70%, with 10% increments. Three different flows were established with their hyperemic phases, and two consecutive measurements were obtained, evaluating the following indices: FFR, CFR, IMR, ABF, and AMR, using a pressure/temperature wire and an infusion catheter. One hundred and thirty‐eight pairs of measurements were performed. Test–retest reliability was compared in 48 FFR, 18 CFR, 24 IMR, 24 ABF, and 24 AMR. Test–retest repeatability showed excellent reproducibility for FFR, ABF, and AMR; respectively 0.98 (0.97–0.99), 0.92 (0.81–0.97) and 0.91 (0.79–0.96) ( P < 0.0001 for all). However, test–retest repeatability was weaker for IMR and poor for CFR; respectively 0.53 (0.16–0.77) ( P = 0.006) and 0.27 (−0.26–0.67) ( P = 0.30). Conclusions Using a coronary flow simulator, FFR and ABF with AMR had excellent test–retest reliability. IMR and CFR demonstrated weaker test–retest reliability.