Comparison of Coronary Physiological Indices in Identifying Functionally Significant Myocardial Bridges in ANOCA
Authors' conclusion
In patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary arteries and an MB confirmed by intravascular ultrasound, dobutamine iFR and dobutamine RFR may serve as alternatives to dobutamine dFFR in identifying a functionally significant MB, with dobutamine RFR having superior diagnostic accuracy.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary arteries, all with an myocardial bridge (MB) confirmed by intravascular ultrasounddobutamine iFR and RFR in first 18, only dobutamine RFR in remaining 46 · dobutamine iFR and dobutamine RFR assessed 18 · only dobutamine RFR assessed 46
- Participants
- 64 patients
- Comparison
- Dobutamine iFR and dobutamine RFR against dobutamine diastolic fractional flow reserve (dFFR) as reference standard
- Dobutamine iFRn = 18
- Outcome
- Correlation with dobutamine dFFR
Performance
As reported in the abstract
| Test or model | Value | P |
|---|---|---|
| Dobutamine iFR | R 2 0.67 | P <0.001 |
| Dobutamine RFR | R 2 0.80 | P <0.001 |
Value
Dobutamine iFRR 2 0.67
Dobutamine RFRR 2 0.80
P
Dobutamine iFRP <0.001
Dobutamine RFRP <0.001
Further findings
| Outcome | Dobutamine iFR | Dobutamine RFR |
|---|---|---|
| ROC cutoff to identify dobutamine dFFR ≤0.76 | 0.81 | 0.76 |
| Area under the curve | 0.961 | 0.996 |
| Diagnostic performance | ||
| Diagnostic accuracy | 94.4% | 96.9% |
| Sensitivity | 100% | 95.8% |
| Specificity | 85.7% | 100% |
Original publication
Comparison of Coronary Physiological Indices in Identifying Functionally Significant Myocardial Bridges in ANOCA. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. Published 14 May 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →