Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 9, 2026
Ultrasound Based Assessment of Coronary Artery Flow and Coronary Flow Reserve Using the Pressure Overload Model in Mice
Published on: April 13, 2015
Repeatability and Correlation of Coronary Physiology Indices Measured With Bolus and Continuous Thermodilution
Christopher C Y Wong1, Luke P Dawson1, Pascal Theriault-Lauzier1,2
1Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine and Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, CA (C.C.Y.W., L.P.D., P.T.-L., A.S., H.L., J.A.T., K.K.K., W.F.F.).
Background:
Previous studies have shown weak agreement between coronary physiology indices derived from continuous and bolus thermodilution, and suggested greater variability with bolus thermodilution measurements. This study aimed to evaluate the repeatability and correlation of continuous and bolus thermodilution-derived physiology indices in cardiac transplant recipients.
Methods:
Paired fractional flow reserve (FFR), coronary flow reserve (CFR), index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), absolute hyperemic resistance (RHyp), and microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) using continuous and bolus thermodilution were performed in consecutive cardiac transplant recipients.
Results:
In 20 patients, IMR was more repeatable than CFR and MRR derived from either continuous thermodilution (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.95 versus 0.70 and 0.59; P=0.004 and P=0.002, respectively) or bolus thermodilution (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.95 versus 0.20 and 0.33; P<0.001 and P=0.002, respectively), and similarly repeatable compared with RHyp (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.95 versus 0.87; P=0.188). FFR by continuous thermodilution correlated with standard FFR measurements (R=0.89, P<0.001) but were significantly lower in value (0.87±0.05 versus 0.89±0.05; P=0.004). CFR and MRR measurements using continuous thermodilution did not correlate with measurements using bolus thermodilution (R=0.33, P=0.170; R=0.34, P=0.155, respectively) and were significantly lower in value (2.9±1.0 versus 3.7±0.8, P=0.003; 3.4±1.1 versus 4.8±1.3, P<0.001, respectively). IMR and RHyp did not correlate (R=0.28, P=0.226).
Conclusions:
In cardiac transplant recipients, IMR had superior repeatability compared with CFR and MRR derived from either bolus or continuous thermodilution, and was equally repeatable compared with RHyp. FFR, CFR, and MRR values obtained from continuous thermodilution were systematically lower compared with their counterparts obtained from bolus thermodilution.
