Instantaneous hyperemic flow-versus-pressure slope index. Microsphere validation of an alternative to measures of coronary reserve.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The instantaneous hyperemic flow-versus-pressure (i-HFVP) slope index is a new method of assessing maximal coronary conductance and can be used as an alternative to conventional measures of coronary reserve. The i-HFVP slope index is determined by measuring the slope of the linear diastolic segment of the relation between instantaneous aortic pressure and hyperemic coronary flow. METHODS AND RESULTS To validate the i-HFVP slope index as a measure of maximal coronary conductance, we compared this method with a microsphere-derived measurement of maximal coronary conductance (m-HFVP slope index) by determining the slope of the least-squares regression line of the data points for coronary flow during maximal hyperemia and four or five steady-state alterations of aortic pressure in 43 dogs (open-chest, anesthetized preparations) with or without coronary stenoses. The i-HFVP slope index demonstrated no dependence on heart rate, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, or mean aortic pressure and was highly reproducible within the groups studied (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.86 for normal arteries, 0.87 for stenotic arteries, and 0.93 for combined groups; for all coefficients, p less than 0.001). The i-HFVP slope index was significantly decreased in the presence of a stenosis (10.3 +/- 3.9 for normal arteries versus 3.6 +/- 1.6 for stenotic arteries, p less than 0.001) as was the transmural m-HFVP slope index (8.9 +/- 4.6 for normal arteries versus 5.3 +/- 3.1, p less than 0.01). Of special importance, the i-HFVP slope index measurement for normal arteries was not significantly different from the transmural and subendocardial m-HFVP slope index measurements (10.3 +/- 3.9 versus 8.9 +/- 4.6 and 9.2 +/- 5.7, respectively). For stenotic arteries, the i-HFVP slope index measurement was also not significantly different from the transmural and subendocardial m-HFVP slope index measurements (3.6 +/- 1.6 versus 5.3 +/- 3.1 and 4.1 +/- 2.3, respectively). The i-HFVP slope index correlated best with subendocardial m-HFVP slope index measurements (correlation coefficient, 0.57; p less than 0.001). When the 95% confidence intervals for the transmural (or subendocardial) m-HFVP slope index in normal arteries were compared with the i-HFVP slope index values, the latter demonstrated a systematic trend to overestimate the m-HFVP slope index. In the presence of a stenosis, this effect was minimized, and the slope values were nearly identical. CONCLUSIONS The i-HFVP slope index correlates most closely with subendocardial coronary conductance; the index is a hemodynamically independent measure of coronary reserve that is reproducible over a broad range of aortic pressures; and the methodology is applicable to an intact circulation in experimental preparations and may with future developments also prove useful in humans.