Doppler Flow Velocity and Thermodilution to Assess Coronary Flow Reserve A Head-to-Head Comparison With [15O]H2O PET

OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare Doppler flow velocity reserve (CFRDoppl) and thermodilution-derived coronary flow reserve (CFRthermo) head-to-head with the gold standard for quantification of myocardial perfusion, [O-15] H2O positron emission tomography (PET). BACKGROUND Coronary flow reserve (CFR) is an important parameter for assessing coronary vascular function. To date, 2 techniques are available for invasive assessment of CFR: Doppler flow velocity and thermodilution. Although these techniques have been compared with each other, neither has been compared with [O-15] H2O PET perfusion imaging. METHODS CFR was assessed in 98 vessels of 40 consecutive stable patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Patients underwent [O-15] H2O PET, followed by invasive angiography in conjunction with simultaneous measurements of fractional flow reserve, CFRDoppl, and CFRthermo. Both normal and obstructed arteries were included. RESULTS The quality of Doppler flow velocity traces was significantly lower than that of thermodilution curves (p < 0.001). A moderate correlation was observed between CFRDoppl and CFRthermo (r = 0.59; p < 0.001). CFRDoppl correlated well with PET-derived CFR (CFRPET) (r = 0.82; p < 0.001). In contrast, the correlation between CFRthermo and CFRPET was only modest (r = 0.55; p < 0.001). This difference in correlation with CFRPET was significant (t = 4.9; df = 95; p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a tendency of CFRthermo to overestimate flow reserve at higher values. CONCLUSIONS Coronary flow reserve, determined using Doppler flow velocity, has superior agreement with [O-15] H2O PET in comparison with CFRthermo. (c) 2018 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.