Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2003
Importance of diastolic fractional flow reserve and dobutamine challenge in physiologic assessment of myocardial bridging.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Escaned Javier, Cortés Jorge, Flores Alex, Goicolea Javier, Alfonso Fernando, Hernández Rosana, Fernández-Ortiz Antonio, Sabaté Manel, Bañuelos Camino, Macaya Carlos
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study reports a comparative assessment of the hemodynamic relevance of myocardial bridges (MB) using two modalities of fractional flow reserve (FFR), with and without concomitant inotropic challenge.
BACKGROUND: Extravascular coronary compression by means of MB is modulated by myocardial inotropism and causes intracoronary systolic pressure overshooting and negative systolic gradients across the MB. The former characteristic suggests that adequate hemodynamic assessment of MB should include inotropic stimulation. The latter characteristic might interfere with FFR by decreasing the mean pressure gradient.
METHODS: We compared the hemodynamic relevance of 12 lone MB in symptomatic patients using conventional (mean) and diastolic FFR. Diastolic FFR was obtained from post-processed, digitally acquired electrocardiogram and pressure signals. Previously validated cut off values of 0.75 (mean FFR) and 0.76 (diastolic FFR) for hemodynamic relevance were used. Measurements were performed at baseline and after incremental intravenous dobutamine doses.
RESULTS: Fractional flow reserve decreased during dobutamine challenge: mean FFR was 0.90 +/- 0.04 at baseline and 0.84 +/- 0.06 after dobutamine (p = 0.0008); similarly, diastolic FFR was 0.88 +/- 0.05 and 0.77 +/- 0.10 before and after dobutamine, respectively (p = 0.0006). Diastolic FFR identified hemodynamic relevance in five patients, whereas mean FFR did so in only one patient. The discrepancy between mean FFR and diastolic FFR increased with dobutamine challenge: the ratio of mean FFR/diastolic FFR was 1.03 at baseline and 1.09 after dobutamine (p = 0.02). During the administration of dobutamine, the discrepancy was inversely related to the systolic pressure gradient (r = 0.58, P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Physiologic assessment of MB should include dobutamine challenge. Because the overshooting of systolic pressure interferes with and is a cause of error in FFR measurements based on mean pressures, diastolic FFR appears to be the technique of choice for MB assessment, whereas mean FFR should be used with caution.
BACKGROUND: Extravascular coronary compression by means of MB is modulated by myocardial inotropism and causes intracoronary systolic pressure overshooting and negative systolic gradients across the MB. The former characteristic suggests that adequate hemodynamic assessment of MB should include inotropic stimulation. The latter characteristic might interfere with FFR by decreasing the mean pressure gradient.
METHODS: We compared the hemodynamic relevance of 12 lone MB in symptomatic patients using conventional (mean) and diastolic FFR. Diastolic FFR was obtained from post-processed, digitally acquired electrocardiogram and pressure signals. Previously validated cut off values of 0.75 (mean FFR) and 0.76 (diastolic FFR) for hemodynamic relevance were used. Measurements were performed at baseline and after incremental intravenous dobutamine doses.
RESULTS: Fractional flow reserve decreased during dobutamine challenge: mean FFR was 0.90 +/- 0.04 at baseline and 0.84 +/- 0.06 after dobutamine (p = 0.0008); similarly, diastolic FFR was 0.88 +/- 0.05 and 0.77 +/- 0.10 before and after dobutamine, respectively (p = 0.0006). Diastolic FFR identified hemodynamic relevance in five patients, whereas mean FFR did so in only one patient. The discrepancy between mean FFR and diastolic FFR increased with dobutamine challenge: the ratio of mean FFR/diastolic FFR was 1.03 at baseline and 1.09 after dobutamine (p = 0.02). During the administration of dobutamine, the discrepancy was inversely related to the systolic pressure gradient (r = 0.58, P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Physiologic assessment of MB should include dobutamine challenge. Because the overshooting of systolic pressure interferes with and is a cause of error in FFR measurements based on mean pressures, diastolic FFR appears to be the technique of choice for MB assessment, whereas mean FFR should be used with caution.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdenosineAgedAngina PectorisBiasBlood Flow VelocityBlood PressureCardiac CatheterizationCardiotonic AgentsCoronary AngiographyCoronary Vessel AnomaliesDiastoleDobutamineElectrocardiographyFemaleHumansLeast-Squares AnalysisLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPatient SelectionPredictive Value of TestsSeverity of Illness IndexSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedSystoleVasodilator Agents