In vitro test-retest repeatability of invasive physiological indices to assess coronary flow

Fabien Picard, Omar Alansari, Satoshi Mogi, Marcel van 't Veer, Olivier Varenne, Julien Adjedj (Corresponding author)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)677-683
Number of pages7
JournalCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Volume94
Issue number5
Early online date6 Mar 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2019

Fingerprint

Blood Vessels
Pathologic Constriction
Catheters
In Vitro Techniques
Pressure
Temperature

Keywords

  • absolute coronary flow
  • coronary flow reserve
  • coronary flow simulator
  • fractional flow reserve
  • index of microcirculatory resistances

Cite this

Picard, Fabien ; Alansari, Omar ; Mogi, Satoshi ; van 't Veer, Marcel ; Varenne, Olivier ; Adjedj, Julien. / In vitro test-retest repeatability of invasive physiological indices to assess coronary flow. In: Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2019 ; Vol. 94, No. 5. pp. 677-683.
@article{85de6f0473eb4886b838d769eb104988,
title = "In vitro test-retest repeatability of invasive physiological indices to assess coronary flow",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "absolute coronary flow, coronary flow reserve, coronary flow simulator, fractional flow reserve, index of microcirculatory resistances",
author = "Fabien Picard and Omar Alansari and Satoshi Mogi and {van 't Veer}, Marcel and Olivier Varenne and Julien Adjedj",
note = "{\circledC} 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.",
year = "2019",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/ccd.28177",
language = "English",
volume = "94",
pages = "677--683",
journal = "Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions",
issn = "1522-1946",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "5",

}

In vitro test-retest repeatability of invasive physiological indices to assess coronary flow. / Picard, Fabien; Alansari, Omar; Mogi, Satoshi; van 't Veer, Marcel; Varenne, Olivier; Adjedj, Julien (Corresponding author).

In: Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, Vol. 94, No. 5, 01.11.2019, p. 677-683.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - In vitro test-retest repeatability of invasive physiological indices to assess coronary flow

AU - Picard, Fabien

AU - Alansari, Omar

AU - Mogi, Satoshi

AU - van 't Veer, Marcel

AU - Varenne, Olivier

AU - Adjedj, Julien

N1 - © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

PY - 2019/11/1

Y1 - 2019/11/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - absolute coronary flow

KW - coronary flow reserve

KW - coronary flow simulator

KW - fractional flow reserve

KW - index of microcirculatory resistances

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062599579&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/ccd.28177

DO - 10.1002/ccd.28177

M3 - Article

C2 - 30838771

VL - 94

SP - 677

EP - 683

JO - Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

JF - Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

SN - 1522-1946

IS - 5

ER -