1. Influence of epicardial stenosis severity and central venous pressure on the index of microcirculatory resistance in a follow-up study
- Author
-
Li M, Bondke A, Gross Cm, Pagonas N, Buschmann Ee, and Klauss
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Central Venous Pressure ,Hemodynamics ,Collateral Circulation ,Severity of Illness Index ,Coronary artery disease ,Coronary circulation ,Internal medicine ,Coronary Circulation ,medicine ,Humans ,Pulmonary wedge pressure ,Aged ,Aged, 80 and over ,business.industry ,Microcirculation ,Central venous pressure ,Coronary Stenosis ,Middle Aged ,medicine.disease ,Coronary Vessels ,Stenosis ,medicine.anatomical_structure ,Cardiology ,Vascular resistance ,Aortic pressure ,Female ,Vascular Resistance ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business ,Follow-Up Studies - Abstract
AIMS: This study sought to evaluate the reproducibility of the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) in a follow-up model and the role of epicardial artery stenosis and central venous pressure (Pv) on IMR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with stable coronary artery disease underwent coronary catheterisation at baseline and after seven weeks. The IMR was calculated at baseline and follow-up in several ways: as IMRuncorrected=Pd·Tmn (Pd: intracoronary pressure distal to the stenosis; Tmn: transit mean time); IMRcorrected=Pa·Tmn·(Pd - Pw)/(Pa-Pw), (Pw: coronary wedge pressure; Pa: aortic pressure); and as IMRcentral venous pressure (IMRcvp)=(Pa-Pv)·Tmn·(Pd-Pw)/(Pa-Pw). By neglecting Pw, IMR was overestimated irrespective of the haemodynamic severity of the epicardial stenosis (baseline: IMRuncorrected=15.5±8.9 U vs. IMRcorrected=13.5±8 U, p
- Published
- 2014