Background: Doppler-tipped coronary guide-wires (FW) are well-established tools in interventional cardiology to quantitatively analyze coronary blood flow. Doppler wires are used to measure the coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR). The CFVR remains reduced in some patients despite anatomically successful coronary angioplasty. It was the aim of our study to test the influence of changes in flow profile on the validity of intra-coronary Doppler flow velocity measurements in vitro. It is still unclear whether turbulent flow in coronary arteries is of importance for physiologic studies in vivo.
Methods: We perfused glass pipes of defined inner diameters (1.5-5.5 mm) with heparinized blood in a pulsatile flow model. Laminar and turbulent flow profiles were achieved by varying the flow velocity. The average peak velocity (APV) was recorded using 0.014 inch FW. Flow velocity measurements were also performed in 75 patients during coronary angiography. Coronary hyperemia was induced by intra-coronary injection of adenosine. The APV maximum was taken for further analysis. The mean luminal diameter of the coronary artery at the region of flow velocity measurement was calculated by quantitative angiography in two orthogonal planes.
Results: In vitro, the measured APV multiplied with the luminal area revealed a significant correlation to the given perfusion volumes in all diameters under laminar flow conditions (r2 > 0.85). Above a critical Reynolds number of 500--indicating turbulent flow--the volume calculation derived by FW velocity measurement underestimated the actual rate of perfusion by up to 22.5 % (13 +/- 4.6 %). In vivo, the hyperemic APV was measured irrespectively of the inherent deviation towards lower velocities. In 15 of 75 patients (20%) the maximum APV exceeded the velocity of the critical Reynolds number determined by the in vitro experiments.
Conclusion: Doppler guide wires are a valid tool for exact measurement of coronary flow velocity below a critical Reynolds number of 500. Reaching a coronary flow velocity above the velocity of the critical Reynolds number may result in an underestimation of the CFVR caused by turbulent flow. This underestimation of the flow velocity may reach up to 22.5 % compared to the actual volumetric flow. Cardiologists should consider this phenomena in at least 20 % of patients when measuring CFVR for clinical decision making.