Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 23, 2026
Evaluation of Coronary Flow Reserve After Myocardial Ischemia Reperfusion in Rats
Published on: June 28, 2019
Coronary flow velocity reserve does not correlate with TIMI frame count in patients undergoing non-emergency
Sanjay K Chugh1, Jennifer Koppel, Mark Scott
1Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Insights
Coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) and Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) frame count (CTFC) are not correlated after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). CTFC is not a reliable surrogate for CFVR in patients undergoing PCI.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Medical Imaging
Background:
- Assessing coronary artery blood flow is crucial in managing coronary artery disease.
- Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) frame count (CTFC) and coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) are used to evaluate myocardial perfusion.
- The relationship between CTFC and CFVR post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy of CTFC and CFVR in patients undergoing PCI.
- To determine if CTFC can serve as a surrogate for CFVR in this patient population.
Main Methods:
- Sixty-two patients undergoing successful non-emergent PCI were evaluated.
- Doppler assessment of CFVR and CTFC, along with quantitative coronary angiography, were performed.
- Frame count reserve was calculated in an additional 17 patients post-PCI.
Main Results:
- Following PCI, CTFC decreased significantly (27 to 18), and CFVR increased significantly (1.5 to 2.6).
- Pre-PCI CTFC and CFVR correlated with minimal lumen diameter.
- No correlation was found between CFVR and CTFC, or between CFVR and frame count reserve, after PCI.
Conclusions:
- CFVR and CTFC are not significantly correlated in patients after coronary intervention.
- CTFC or frame count reserve are inadequate surrogate measures for Doppler-derived CFVR.
- Further research is needed to clarify the predictive value of these measures for patient outcomes.
Objectives:
The purpose of this research was to compare the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) frame count (CTFC) with coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Background:
The relationship between CTFC and CFVR has not been adequately assessed in patients with coronary artery disease.
Methods:
We studied 62 patients who underwent successful non-emergent PCI. All patients had Doppler evaluation of CFVR, CTFC, and quantitative coronary angiography. In an additional 17 patients, a frame count reserve was calculated as baseline CTFC/CTFC at peak hyperemia, induced by intracoronary adenosine after PCI.
Results:
The CTFC decreased from 27 +/- 13 to 18 +/- 8, and CFVR increased from 1.5 +/- 0.4 to 2.6 +/- 0.7 (both p < 0.0001). The pre-PCI CTFC and the CFVR were closely related to minimal lumen diameter (p < 0.0001). After PCI, there was no correlation between CFVR and CTFC. In addition, no relationship was observed between CFVR and the frame count reserve.
Conclusions:
There was no significant correlation between CFVR and CTFC in patients undergoing coronary intervention. The relative utility of these measures in predicting outcomes in this setting requires further evaluation, but CTFC (or frame count reserve) does not appear to be an adequate surrogate measure of Doppler-derived CFVR.
