Limits...
Quantification of fractional flow reserve based on angiographic image data.

Wong JT, Le H, Suh WM, Chalyan DA, Mehraien T, Kern MJ, Kassab GS, Molloi S - Int J Cardiovasc Imaging (2011)

Bottom Line: Pressure-wire measurements of FFR (FFR( P )) correlated linearly with angiographic volume-derived measurements of FFR (FFR( V )) according to the equation: FFR( P ) = 0.41 FFR( V ) + 0.52 (P-value < 0.001).The correlation coefficient and standard error of estimate were 0.85 and 0.07, respectively.This is the first study to provide an angiographic method to quantify FFR in swine.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiological Sciences, Medical Sciences I, B-140, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.

ABSTRACT
Coronary angiography provides excellent visualization of coronary arteries, but has limitations in assessing the clinical significance of a coronary stenosis. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been shown to be reliable in discerning stenoses responsible for inducible ischemia. The purpose of this study is to validate a technique for FFR quantification using angiographic image data. The study was carried out on 10 anesthetized, closed-chest swine using angioplasty balloon catheters to produce partial occlusion. Angiography based FFR was calculated from an angiographically measured ratio of coronary blood flow to arterial lumen volume. Pressure-based FFR was measured from a ratio of distal coronary pressure to aortic pressure. Pressure-wire measurements of FFR (FFR( P )) correlated linearly with angiographic volume-derived measurements of FFR (FFR( V )) according to the equation: FFR( P ) = 0.41 FFR( V ) + 0.52 (P-value < 0.001). The correlation coefficient and standard error of estimate were 0.85 and 0.07, respectively. This is the first study to provide an angiographic method to quantify FFR in swine. Angiographic FFR can potentially provide an assessment of the physiological severity of a coronary stenosis during routine diagnostic cardiac catheterization without a need to cross a stenosis with a pressure-wire.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

A linear regression analysis of FFRP and FFRQ measurements. The solid line represents the regression line (FFRP = 0.61 FFRQ + 0.52; r = 0.87; SEE = 0.070). Standard errors in the slope and y-intercept values are 0.03 and 0.02, respectively
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3094747&req=5

Fig5: A linear regression analysis of FFRP and FFRQ measurements. The solid line represents the regression line (FFRP = 0.61 FFRQ + 0.52; r = 0.87; SEE = 0.070). Standard errors in the slope and y-intercept values are 0.03 and 0.02, respectively

Mentions: A comparison of FFRV and FFRP measurements is given in Fig. 4. A strong correlation was observed (r = 0.85) with SEE = 0.07. The equation of the regression line was determined as FFRP = 0.41 FFRV + 0.52 (P-value < 0.001). FFR, defined as a ratio of diseased to normal flow (Eq. 1), was also quantified since the normal flow through the LAD was known from angiographic flow measurements. This flow-derived FFR (FFRQ) was calculated in the nine pigs with normal flows that were measurable with angiographic data (Pig 7 was excluded because of respiratory motion). Figure 5 compares the flow-derived FFR (FFRQ) to FFRP. The equation of the regression line relating FFRQ to FFRP was determined as FFRP = 0.61 FFRQ + 0.52 with a correlation coefficient of 0.87 and SEE of 0.07.Fig. 4


Quantification of fractional flow reserve based on angiographic image data.

Wong JT, Le H, Suh WM, Chalyan DA, Mehraien T, Kern MJ, Kassab GS, Molloi S - Int J Cardiovasc Imaging (2011)

A linear regression analysis of FFRP and FFRQ measurements. The solid line represents the regression line (FFRP = 0.61 FFRQ + 0.52; r = 0.87; SEE = 0.070). Standard errors in the slope and y-intercept values are 0.03 and 0.02, respectively
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3094747&req=5

Fig5: A linear regression analysis of FFRP and FFRQ measurements. The solid line represents the regression line (FFRP = 0.61 FFRQ + 0.52; r = 0.87; SEE = 0.070). Standard errors in the slope and y-intercept values are 0.03 and 0.02, respectively
Mentions: A comparison of FFRV and FFRP measurements is given in Fig. 4. A strong correlation was observed (r = 0.85) with SEE = 0.07. The equation of the regression line was determined as FFRP = 0.41 FFRV + 0.52 (P-value < 0.001). FFR, defined as a ratio of diseased to normal flow (Eq. 1), was also quantified since the normal flow through the LAD was known from angiographic flow measurements. This flow-derived FFR (FFRQ) was calculated in the nine pigs with normal flows that were measurable with angiographic data (Pig 7 was excluded because of respiratory motion). Figure 5 compares the flow-derived FFR (FFRQ) to FFRP. The equation of the regression line relating FFRQ to FFRP was determined as FFRP = 0.61 FFRQ + 0.52 with a correlation coefficient of 0.87 and SEE of 0.07.Fig. 4

Bottom Line: Pressure-wire measurements of FFR (FFR( P )) correlated linearly with angiographic volume-derived measurements of FFR (FFR( V )) according to the equation: FFR( P ) = 0.41 FFR( V ) + 0.52 (P-value < 0.001).The correlation coefficient and standard error of estimate were 0.85 and 0.07, respectively.This is the first study to provide an angiographic method to quantify FFR in swine.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Radiological Sciences, Medical Sciences I, B-140, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.

ABSTRACT
Coronary angiography provides excellent visualization of coronary arteries, but has limitations in assessing the clinical significance of a coronary stenosis. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been shown to be reliable in discerning stenoses responsible for inducible ischemia. The purpose of this study is to validate a technique for FFR quantification using angiographic image data. The study was carried out on 10 anesthetized, closed-chest swine using angioplasty balloon catheters to produce partial occlusion. Angiography based FFR was calculated from an angiographically measured ratio of coronary blood flow to arterial lumen volume. Pressure-based FFR was measured from a ratio of distal coronary pressure to aortic pressure. Pressure-wire measurements of FFR (FFR( P )) correlated linearly with angiographic volume-derived measurements of FFR (FFR( V )) according to the equation: FFR( P ) = 0.41 FFR( V ) + 0.52 (P-value < 0.001). The correlation coefficient and standard error of estimate were 0.85 and 0.07, respectively. This is the first study to provide an angiographic method to quantify FFR in swine. Angiographic FFR can potentially provide an assessment of the physiological severity of a coronary stenosis during routine diagnostic cardiac catheterization without a need to cross a stenosis with a pressure-wire.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus