File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Repeatability and Correlation of Coronary Physiology Indices Measured With Bolus and Continuous Thermodilution

TitleRepeatability and Correlation of Coronary Physiology Indices Measured With Bolus and Continuous Thermodilution
Authors
Keywordscoronary artery disease
heart transplantation
hyperemia
physiology
thermodilution
Issue Date2025
Citation
Circulation Cardiovascular Interventions, 2025, v. 18, n. 4, p. e014919 How to Cite?
AbstractBACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown weak agreement between coronary physiology indices derived from continuous and bolus thermodilution, and suggested greater variability with bolus thermodilution measurements. This study aimed to evaluate the repeatability and correlation of continuous and bolus thermodilution-derived physiology indices in cardiac transplant recipients. METHODS: Paired fractional flow reserve (FFR), coronary flow reserve (CFR), index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), absolute hyperemic resistance (RHyp), and microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) using continuous and bolus thermodilution were performed in consecutive cardiac transplant recipients. RESULTS: In 20 patients, IMR was more repeatable than CFR and MRR derived from either continuous thermodilution (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.95 versus 0.70 and 0.59; P=0.004 and P=0.002, respectively) or bolus thermodilution (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.95 versus 0.20 and 0.33; P<0.001 and P=0.002, respectively), and similarly repeatable compared with RHyp(intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.95 versus 0.87; P=0.188). FFR by continuous thermodilution correlated with standard FFR measurements (R=0.89, P<0.001) but were significantly lower in value (0.87±0.05 versus 0.89±0.05; P=0.004). CFR and MRR measurements using continuous thermodilution did not correlate with measurements using bolus thermodilution (R=0.33, P=0.170; R=0.34, P=0.155, respectively) and were significantly lower in value (2.9±1.0 versus 3.7±0.8, P=0.003; 3.4±1.1 versus 4.8±1.3, P<0.001, respectively). IMR and RHypdid not correlate (R=0.28, P=0.226). CONCLUSIONS: In cardiac transplant recipients, IMR had superior repeatability compared with CFR and MRR derived from either bolus or continuous thermodilution, and was equally repeatable compared with RHyp. FFR, CFR, and MRR values obtained from continuous thermodilution were systematically lower compared with their counterparts obtained from bolus thermodilution.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/368850
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 6.1
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.242

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWong, Christopher C.Y.-
dc.contributor.authorDawson, Luke P.-
dc.contributor.authorTheriault-Lauzier, Pascal-
dc.contributor.authorSkoda, Annette-
dc.contributor.authorLuikart, Helen-
dc.contributor.authorTremmel, Jennifer A.-
dc.contributor.authorKhush, Kiran K.-
dc.contributor.authorFearon, William F.-
dc.date.accessioned2026-01-16T02:38:26Z-
dc.date.available2026-01-16T02:38:26Z-
dc.date.issued2025-
dc.identifier.citationCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions, 2025, v. 18, n. 4, p. e014919-
dc.identifier.issn1941-7640-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/368850-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown weak agreement between coronary physiology indices derived from continuous and bolus thermodilution, and suggested greater variability with bolus thermodilution measurements. This study aimed to evaluate the repeatability and correlation of continuous and bolus thermodilution-derived physiology indices in cardiac transplant recipients. METHODS: Paired fractional flow reserve (FFR), coronary flow reserve (CFR), index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), absolute hyperemic resistance (R<inf>Hyp</inf>), and microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) using continuous and bolus thermodilution were performed in consecutive cardiac transplant recipients. RESULTS: In 20 patients, IMR was more repeatable than CFR and MRR derived from either continuous thermodilution (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.95 versus 0.70 and 0.59; P=0.004 and P=0.002, respectively) or bolus thermodilution (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.95 versus 0.20 and 0.33; P<0.001 and P=0.002, respectively), and similarly repeatable compared with R<inf>Hyp</inf>(intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.95 versus 0.87; P=0.188). FFR by continuous thermodilution correlated with standard FFR measurements (R=0.89, P<0.001) but were significantly lower in value (0.87±0.05 versus 0.89±0.05; P=0.004). CFR and MRR measurements using continuous thermodilution did not correlate with measurements using bolus thermodilution (R=0.33, P=0.170; R=0.34, P=0.155, respectively) and were significantly lower in value (2.9±1.0 versus 3.7±0.8, P=0.003; 3.4±1.1 versus 4.8±1.3, P<0.001, respectively). IMR and R<inf>Hyp</inf>did not correlate (R=0.28, P=0.226). CONCLUSIONS: In cardiac transplant recipients, IMR had superior repeatability compared with CFR and MRR derived from either bolus or continuous thermodilution, and was equally repeatable compared with R<inf>Hyp</inf>. FFR, CFR, and MRR values obtained from continuous thermodilution were systematically lower compared with their counterparts obtained from bolus thermodilution.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions-
dc.subjectcoronary artery disease-
dc.subjectheart transplantation-
dc.subjecthyperemia-
dc.subjectphysiology-
dc.subjectthermodilution-
dc.titleRepeatability and Correlation of Coronary Physiology Indices Measured With Bolus and Continuous Thermodilution-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.124.014919-
dc.identifier.pmid40233166-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-105003447861-
dc.identifier.volume18-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spagee014919-
dc.identifier.epage-
dc.identifier.eissn1941-7632-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats