Determination of coronary flow reserve by parametric imaging

Nine mongrel dogs were instrumented with electromagnetic flow probes (EMF) to measure coronary blood flow through the left anterior descending (LAD) and left circumflex (LCx) coronary arteries at rest and after maximal coronary vasodilation (1 mg/kg/min adenosine). Relative coronary blood flow was determined by parametric imaging in the left posterior oblique projection using digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Transmural myocardial perfusion of the LAD and LCx beds was determined with tracer-labeled microspheres. Coronary flow reserve (maximal coronary blood flow divided by resting blood flow) was calculated under control conditions and after constriction of the proximal LAD or LCx by a screw occluder. Heart rate decreased significantly from 140 beats/min at rest to 122 beats/min after adenosine (p less than 0.001) and from 134 (rest) to 120 beats/min (adenosine; p less than 0.05) after coronary constriction. Peak systolic pressure was kept constant with an aortic constrictor. Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure increased significantly from 18 mm Hg at rest to 23 mm Hg (p less than 0.05) after coronary constriction. At baseline, coronary flow reserve was 4.2 with DSA, 3.8 with EMF, and 3.7 with microspheres; after coronary constriction, it was 2.6 (DSA), 1.9 (EMF), and 1.5 (microspheres) (all p less than 0.001 versus baseline). Coronary blood flow showed a good correlation between EMF and microspheres (r = 0.87, p less than 0.001), with a standard error of estimate (SEE) of 0.78 ml/g/min. Coronary flow reserve also showed a good correlation between EMF and microspheres (r = 0.82, p less than 0.001), with an SEE of 0.93. There was a moderate correlation between EMF and DSA (r = 0.68, p less than 0.001), with an SEE of 1.35 (40% of mean coronary flow reserve). The correlation coefficient between microspheres and DSA was 0.54 (p less than 0.01), with an SEE of 1.46 (39% of mean coronary flow reserve). The mean difference (accuracy) and standard deviation of difference (precision) were 0.2 +/- 1.0 between EMF and microspheres, -0.1 +/- 1.4 between EMF and DSA, and -0.6 +/- 1.7 between microspheres and DSA. We conclude that determination of coronary flow reserve by parametric imaging is associated with large variations that are greater than variations also inherent in the two reference techniques. Parametric imaging allows relatively accurate assessment of coronary flow reserve (small mean difference), but precision is low (large standard deviation of mean differences).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)