Experimental Basis of Determining Maximum Coronary, Myocardial, and Collateral Blood Flow by Pressure Measurements for Assessing Functional Stenosis Severity Before and After Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty

Background: Severity of coronary artery stenosis has been defined in terms of geometric dimensions, pressure gradient-flow relations, resistance to flow and coronary flow reserve, or maximum flow capacity after maximum arteriolar vasodilation. A direct relation between coronary pressure and flow, however, may only be presumed if the resistances in the coronary circulation are constant (and minimal) as theoretically is the case during maximum arteriolar vasodilation. In that case, pressure measurements theoretically can be used to predict maximum flow and assess functional stenosis severity.

Methods And Results: A theoretical model was developed for the different components of the coronary circulation, and a set of equations was derived by which the relative maximum flow or fractional flow reserve in both the stenotic epicardial artery and the myocardial vascular bed and the proportional contribution of coronary arterial and collateral flow to myocardial blood flow are calculated from measurements of arterial, distal coronary, and central venous pressures during maximum arteriolar vasodilation. To test this model, five dogs were acutely instrumented with an epicardial, coronary Doppler flow velocity transducer. Distal coronary pressures were measured by an ultrathin pressure-monitoring guide wire (0.015 in.) with minimal influence on transstenotic pressure gradient. Fractional flow reserve was calculated from the pressure measurements and compared with relative maximum coronary artery flow measured directly by the Doppler flowmeter at three different levels of arterial pressure for each of 12 different severities of stenosis at each pressure level. Relative maximum blood flow through the stenotic artery (Qs) measured directly by the Doppler flowmeter showed an excellent correlation with the pressure-derived values of Qs (r = 0.98 +/- 0.01, intercept = 0.02 +/- 0.03, slope = 0.98 +/- 0.04), of the relative maximum myocardial flow (r = 0.98 +/- 0.02, intercept = 0.26 +/- 0.07, slope = 0.73 +/- 0.08), and of the collateral blood flow (r = 0.96 +/- 0.04, intercept = 0.24 +/- 0.07, slope = -0.24 +/- 0.06). Moreover, the theoretically predicted constant relation between mean arterial pressure and coronary wedge pressure, both corrected for venous pressure, was confirmed experimentally (r = 0.97 +/- 0.03, intercept = 9.5 +/- 13.3, slope = 4.4 +/- 1.2).

Conclusions: These results provide the experimental basis for determining relative maximum flow or fractional flow reserve of both the epicardial coronary artery and the myocardium, including collateral flow, from pressure measurements during maximum arteriolar vasodilation. With a suitable guide wire for reliably measuring distal coronary pressure clinically, this method may have potential applications during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for assessing changes in the functional severity of coronary artery stenoses and for estimating collateral flow achievable during occlusion of the coronary artery.