ArticleCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2025
Impact of Procedural Differences on Bolus Thermodilution Method for Assessment of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction.
Article in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe thermodilution technique, employing bolus injections to measure coronary flow reserve (CFR) and the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), is widely used to assess coronary microvascular function. However, the potential influence of catheter size and operator differences on these measurements has not been systematically evaluated.
aimsThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and consistency of thermodilution-based CMD assessment with respect to different catheter sizes and operators.
methodsA total of 320 coronary arteries were assessed using a 0.014-inch pressure-temperature sensor-tipped guidewire. The data set included both angiographically normal vessels and those with varying degrees of stenosis.
resultsFour cases using 4 Fr catheters and data from three of seven operators (due to insufficient case numbers) were excluded. No statistically significant differences in CFR or IMR values were observed among the four operators. Similarly, no significant differences were found between experienced and less-experienced operators (CFR: 1.90 vs. 1.80, p = 0.178; IMR: 19.00 vs. 20.50, p = 0.968). In contrast, CFR values varied significantly by catheter size (5 Fr: 2.20; 6 Fr: 1.80; 7 Fr: 1.50; 8 Fr: 1.70; p < 0.001), whereas IMR remained unaffected. When catheter sizes were dichotomized (small: 5-6 Fr; large: 7-8 Fr), CFR was significantly higher in the small-size group (1.95 vs. 1.65, p = 0.003), while IMR showed no significant difference (20.00 vs. 20.00, p = 0.239).
conclusionsWhile the selection of larger catheter sizes may affect CFR with thermodilution, common sizes and operator techniques show consistent results in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.