Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2023
Angiography-based coronary microvascular assessment with and without intracoronary pressure measurements: a systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kest Michael, Ágoston András, Szabó Gábor Tamás, Kiss Attila, Üveges Áron, Czuriga Dániel, Komócsi András, Hizoh István, Kőszegi Zsolt
Аннотация
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: 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: 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: 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.
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: 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: 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.