Comparison of bolus versus continuous thermodilution derived indices of microvascular dysfunction in revascularized coronary syndromes

Background The assessment of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) using invasive methods is a field of growing interest, however the preferred method remains debated. Bolus and continuous thermodilution are commonly used methods, but weak agreement has been observed in patients with angina with non-obstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA). This study examined their agreement in revascularized acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) patients. Objective To compare bolus thermodilution and continuous thermodilution indices of CMD in revascularized ACS and CCS patients and assess their diagnostic agreement at pre-defined cut-off points. Methods Patients from two centers underwent paired bolus and continuous thermodilution assessments after revascularization. CMD indices were compared between the two methods and their agreements at binary cut-off points were assessed. Results Ninety-six patients and 116 vessels were included. The mean age was 64 ± 11 years, and 20 (21 %) were female. Overall, weak correlations were observed between the Index of Microcirculatory Resistance (IMR) and continuous thermodilution microvascular resistance (Rµ) (rho = 0.30p = 0.001). The median coronary flow reserve (CFR) from continuous thermodilution (CFRcont) and bolus thermodilution (CFRbolus) were 2.19 (1.76–2.67) and 2.55 (1.50–3.58), respectively (p < 0.001). Weak correlation and agreement were observed between CFRcont and CFRbolus (rho = 0.37, p < 0.001, ICC 0.228 [0.055–0.389]). When assessed at CFR cut-off values of 2.0 and 2.5, the methods disagreed in 41 (35 %) and 45 (39 %) of cases, respectively. Conclusions There is a significant difference and weak agreement between bolus and continuous thermodilution-derived indices, which must be considered when diagnosing CMD in ACS and CCS patients.