2019
DOI: 10.4244/eij-d-18-00021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comprehensive physiological evaluation of epicardial and microvascular coronary domains using vascular conductance and zero flow pressure

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…HMR was calculated as the ratio between hyperemic Pd to hyperemic APV and expressed as mmHg.cm -1 .s -1 [16]. DMVC, which has also been described as Instantaneous Hyperaemic Diastolic Velocity Pressure Slope, was defined as the slope (beta coefficient) of the relationship between hyperemic Pd and AVP flow in mid to end diastole and was represented by a regression line (y= a + bx), expressed in cm.s -1 .mmHg -1 [17].…”
Section: Study Populationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…HMR was calculated as the ratio between hyperemic Pd to hyperemic APV and expressed as mmHg.cm -1 .s -1 [16]. DMVC, which has also been described as Instantaneous Hyperaemic Diastolic Velocity Pressure Slope, was defined as the slope (beta coefficient) of the relationship between hyperemic Pd and AVP flow in mid to end diastole and was represented by a regression line (y= a + bx), expressed in cm.s -1 .mmHg -1 [17].…”
Section: Study Populationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although in general, a myocardial flow reserve below two is considered abnormal whereas beyond 2.5 is deemed normal, with an ambiguous transition zone between 2.0 and 2.5 (6). These values were confirmed by a recent multicenter study presenting an optimal threshold of 2.30 mL•min -1 •g -1 for hyperemic MBF and 2.50 mL•min -1 •g -1 for myocardial flow reserve when compared with invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements (40). It can be questioned, however, whether single thresholds are reasonable.…”
Section: Clinical Value Of Myocardial Blood Flow Imagingmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…Another interesting finding from recent studies is that hyperemic MBF quantification outperforms CFR to diagnose obstructive CAD, highlighting the potential of stress only protocols (40,53,54). The largest of these studies, involving 330 patients, reported a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 89, 84, and 86% against 86, 72, and 78% for hyperemic MBF and CFR, respectively (40) (Figure 4).…”
Section: O Pet (B) and Invasive Coronary Angiography (C) Images Of A ...mentioning
confidence: 99%