Quantification of Myocardial Mass Subtended by a Coronary Stenosis Using Intracoronary Physiology.
Clicks: 336
ID: 43723
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Star Article
30.0
/100
336 views
42 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
StarRanked #2 of 4 articles by views in circulation cardiovascular interventions
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
In patients with stable coronary artery disease, the amount of myocardium subtended by coronary stenoses constitutes a major determinant of prognosis, as well as of the benefit of coronary revascularization. We devised a novel method to estimate partial myocardial mass (PMM; ie, the amount of myocardium subtended by a stenosis) during physiological stenosis interrogation. Subsequently, we validated the index against equivalent PMM values derived from applying the Voronoi algorithm on coronary computed tomography angiography.Based on the myocardial metabolic demand and blood supply, PMM was calculated as follows: PMM (g)=APV×D×π/(1.24×10×HR×sBP+1.6), where APV indicates average peak blood flow velocity; D, vessel diameter; HR, heart rate; and sBP, systolic blood pressure. We calculated PMM to 43 coronary vessels (32 patients) interrogated with pressure and Doppler guidewires, and compared it with computed tomography-based PMM.Median PMM was 15.8 g (Q1, Q3: 11.7, 28.4 g) for physiology-based PMM, and 17.0 g (Q1, Q3: 12.5, 25.9 g) for computed tomography-based PMM (=0.84). Spearman rank correlation coefficient was 0.916 (<0.001), and Passing-Bablok analysis revealed absence of both constant and proportional differences (coefficient A: -0.9; 95% CI, -4.5 to 0.9; and coefficient B, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.25]. Bland-Altman analysis documented a mean bias of 0.5 g (limit of agreement: -9.1 to 10.2 g).Physiology-based calculation of PMM in the catheterization laboratory is feasible and can be accurately performed as part of functional stenosis assessment.
| Reference Key |
murai2019quantificationcirculation
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Murai, Tadashi;van de Hoef, Tim P;van den Boogert, Thomas P W;Wijntjens, Gilbert W M;Stegehuis, Valérie E;Echavarria-Pinto, Mauro;Hoshino, Masahiro;Yonetsu, Taishi;Planken, R Nils;Henriques, José P S;Escaned, Javier;Kakuta, Tsunekazu;Piek, Jan J; |
| Journal | circulation cardiovascular interventions |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.007322
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.