Current status and future expectations of the flow velocity guidewire

  • Richard G. Bach
Part of the Developments in Cardiovascular Medicine book series (DICM, volume 186)

Summary

Coronary angiography incompletely delineates the physiologic consequences of many epicardial stenoses and is unable to diagnose microvascular abnormalities. Intracoronary flow velocity measurements with the Doppler guidewire contribute physiologic data regarding the hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses and the functional capacity of the coronary microvasculature. Flow velocity analysis can provide objective criteria for refining the selection of cases for revascularization, and prospective clinical data have confirmed the safety of deferring intervention on lesions with normal physiologic assessment. Translesional and distal coronary flow velocity dynamics during procedures also yield immediate information regarding the physiologic adequacy of intervention. The preliminary results of the DEBATE study indicate that impaired post-PTCA coronary flow reserve (CFR) predicts subsequent clinical events, and data comparing flow velocity indices pre- and post-stenting suggest physiologically inadequate results of PTCA may be improved by additional intervention. Flow velocity assessment may also have utility in profiling the adequacy of infarct artery reperfusion following acute myocardial infarction. Evidence has been accumulated to support an expanding use of Doppler flow velocity analysis as a clinically relevant and cost-effective technique for improving both diagnostic and therapeutic decisions in interventional cardiology.

Keywords

Fractional Flow Reserve Coronary Flow Reserve Coronary Flow Velocity Flow Velocity Measurement Hemodynamic Significance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Zir LM, Miller SW, Dinsmore RE, Gilbert JP, Harthorne JW. Interobserver variability in coronary angiography. Circulation 1976;53:627–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Doucette JW, Corl PD, Payne HM et al. Validation of a doppler guide wire for intravascular measurement of coronary artery flow velocity. Circulation 1992;85:1899–911.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chauhan A, Mullins PA, Petch MC, Schofield PM. Is coronary flow reserve in response to papaverine really normal in syndrome X? Circulation 1994;89:1998–2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kern MJ, Aguirre FV, Bach RG et al. Variations in coronary vasodilatory reserve by artery, sex, status post transplantation and remote coronary disease [abstract]. Circulation 1994;90(4 pt 2):I-154.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donohue TJ, Kern MJ, Aguirre FV et al. Assessing the hemodynamic significance of coronary artery stenoses: analysis of translesional pressure-flow velocity relationships in patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;22:449–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miller DD, Donohue TJ, Younis LT et al. Correlation of pharmacological 99mTc-sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging with poststenotic coronary flow reserve in patients with angiographically intermediate coronary artery stenoses. Circulation 1994;89:2150–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heller LI, Silver KH, Villegas BJ, Balcom SJ, Weiner BH. Blood flow velocity in the right coronary artery: assessment before and after angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;24:1012–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tron C, Kern MJ, Donohue TJ et al. Comparison of quantitative angiographically derived and measured translesion pressure and flow velocity in coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1995;75:111–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Joye JD, Schulman DS, Lasorda D, Farah T, Donohue BC, Reichek N. Intracoronary Doppler guide wire versus stress single-photon emission computed tomographic thallium-201 imaging in assessment of intermediate coronary stenoses. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;24:940–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Manor D, Shofti R, Sideman S, Beyar R. Quantitative sorting of normal and abnormal coronary flow wave form shapes. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1994;41:846–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kajiya F, Tsujioka K, Ogasawara Y et al. Analysis of flow characteristics in poststenotic regions of the human coronary artery during bypass graft surgery. Circulation 1987;76:1092–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Segal J, Kern MJ, Scott NA et al. Alterations of phasic coronary artery flow velocity in humans during percutaneous coronary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992;20:276–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ofili EO, Kern MJ, Labovitz AJ et al. Analysis of coronary blood flow velocity dynamics in angiographically normal and stenosed arteries before and after endolumen enlargement by angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;21:308–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gould KL, Lipscomb K, Hamilton GW. Physiologic basis for assessing critical coronary stenosis. Instantaneous flow response and regional distribution during coronary hyperemia as measures of coronary flow reserve. Am J Cardiol 1974;33:87–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Bruyne B, Baudhuin T, Melin JA et al. Coronary flow reserve calculated from pressure measurements in humans. Validation with positron emission tomography. Circulation 1994;89:1013–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Bruyne B, Bartunek J, Sys SU, Heyndrickx GR. Relation between myocardial fractional flow reserve calculated from coronary pressure measurements and exercise-induced myocardial ischemia. Circulation 1995;92:39–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pijls NHJ, van Gelder B, van der Voort P et al. Fractional flow reserve. A useful index to evaluate the influence of an epicardial coronary stenosis on myocardial blood flow. Circulation 1995;92:3183–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tron C, Donohue TJ, Bach RG et al. Comparison of pressure-derived fractional flow reserve with poststenotic coronary flow velocity reserve for prediction of stress myocardial perfusion imaging results. Am Heart J 1995;130:723–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mancini GBJ, McGillem MJ, DeBoe SF, Gallagher KP. The diastolic hyperemic flow versus pressure relation. A new index of coronary stenosis severity and flow reserve. Circulation 1989;80:941–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Di Mario C, Krams R, Gil R, Serruys PW. Slope of the instantaneous hyperemic diastolic coronary flow velocity-pressure relation. A new index for assessment of the physiologic significance of coronary stenosis in humans. Circulation 1994;90:1215–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kern MJ, Donohue TJ, Aguirre FV et al. Clinical outcome of deferring angioplasty in patients with normal translesional pressure-flow velocity measurements. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;25:178–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kern MJ, Donohue TJ, Aguirre FV et al. Assessment of angiographically intermediate coronary artery stenosis using the doppler flowire. Am J Cardiol 1993;71:26D–33D.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kern MJ, Flynn MS, Caracciolo EA, Bach RG, Donohue TJ, Aguirre FV. Use of translesional coronary flow velocity for interventional decisions in a patient with multiple intermediately severe coronary stenoses. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1993;29:148–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anderson HV, Kirkeeide RL, Stuart Y, Smalling RW, Heibig J, Willerson, JT. Coronary artery flow monitoring following coronary interventions. Am J Cardiol 1993;71:62D–69D.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kern MJ, Aguirre FV, Donohue TJ et al. Continuous coronary flow velocity monitoring during coronary interventions: velocity trend patterns associated with adverse events. Am Heart J 1994;128:426–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Anderson HV, Kirkeeide RL, Krishnaswami A et al. Cyclic flow variations after coronary angioplasty in humans: clinical and angiographic characteristics and elimination with 7E3 monoclonal antiplatelet antibody. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;23:1031–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    DEBATE Study Group. Are flow velocity measurements after PTC A predictive of recurrence of angina or of a positive exercise test early after balloon angioplasty? [abstract] Circulation 1995;92(Suppl.1):1–264.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kern MJ, Aguirre FV, Donohue TJ et al. Impact of residual lumen narrowing on coronary flow after angioplasty and stent: intravascular ultrasound Doppler and imaging data in support of physiologically-guided coronary angioplasty [abstract]. Circulation 1995;92(Suppl.1):1–263.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Anderson JL, Karagounis LA, Becker LC, Sorensen SG, Menlove RL. TIMI perfusion grade 3 but not grade 2 results in improved outcome after thrombolysis for myocardial infarction. Ventriculographic, enzymatic, and electrocardiographic evidence from the TEAM-3 study. Circulation 1993;87:1829–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aguirre FV, Donohue TJ, Bach RG et al. Coronary flow velocity of infarct-related arteries: physiologic differences between complete (TIMI III) and incomplete (TIMI O,I,II) angiographic coronary perfusion [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;25(Special Issue):401A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Joye JD, Cates CU, Farah T et al. Cost analysis of intracoronary Doppler determination of lesion significance: preliminary results of the PEACH Study [abstract]. J Invasive Cardiol 1995;7:22A.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard G. Bach

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations