Skip to main content
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine logoLink to Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
. 2023 Jul 6;10:1159160. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1159160

Sex differences in coronary microvascular resistance measured by a computational fluid dynamics model

Daniel J Taylor 1,*,, Louise Aubiniere-Robb 1,, Rebecca Gosling 1,2,3, Tom Newman 1,2, D Rodney Hose 1,3, Ian Halliday 1,3, Patricia V Lawford 1,3, Andrew J Narracott 1,3, Julian P Gunn 1,2,3, Paul D Morris 1,2,3
PMCID: PMC10357508  PMID: 37485258

Abstract

Background

Increased coronary microvascular resistance (CMVR) is associated with coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD). Although CMD is more common in women, sex-specific differences in CMVR have not been demonstrated previously.

Aim

To compare CMVR between men and women being investigated for chest pain.

Methods and results

We used a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of human coronary physiology to calculate absolute CMVR based on invasive coronary angiographic images and pressures in 203 coronary arteries from 144 individual patients. CMVR was significantly higher in women than men (860 [650–1,205] vs. 680 [520–865] WU, Z = −2.24, p = 0.025). None of the other major subgroup comparisons yielded any differences in CMVR.

Conclusion

CMVR was significantly higher in women compared with men. These sex-specific differences may help to explain the increased prevalence of CMD in women.

Keywords: coronary microvascular resistance, sex, computational fluid dynamics, coronary microvascular dysfunction, coronary physiology

1. Introduction

In health, the epicardial coronary arteries act as low resistance conductance vessels, whereas the distal microvessels exhibit dynamic resistance, variation in which matches coronary blood flow (CBF) closely to the prevailing metabolic demands of the myocardium. Pathological increases in the resistance of either compartment can reduce maximal CBF, resulting in ischaemia. Unlike epicardial disease, the investigation and treatment of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is less well established. In many cases, CMD is associated with increased coronary microvascular resistance (CMVR) (1). CMD is common in patients with epicardial coronary artery disease (CAD) and in those with angina with no obstructive epicardial disease (ANOCA) (2), with a recent meta-analysis suggesting a prevalence of 41% in the latter group (3). Furthermore, In the CE-MARC2 coronary physiology sub-study, Corcoran et al. found that, in patients undergoing invasive assessment for suspected CAD, 68% had some evidence of impaired coronary microvascular physiology, with similarly high rates in those with obstructive CAD (4). When CMD reduces the maximum vasodilatory reserve of the coronary circulation, which may be measured using coronary flow reserve (CFR), it is associated with an increased likelihood of major adverse cardiac events (5). Similarly, microvascular assessment has prognostic value in the assessment of patients with both acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (6) and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) (7). CMD can be treated with guideline-indicated therapy, with improvements in angina, quality of life and illness perception (8). Studies show CMD is more common in women than men (911). However, there are no data showing sex differences in CMVR. The aim of this study was to compare hyperaemic CMVR in men vs. women and investigate other major subgroups in patients undergoing angiography for the investigation of chest pain.

2. Methods

2.1. Patient recruitment

Patients undergoing cardiac catheterisation for acute and chronic coronary syndromes at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust were considered eligible. For acute cases, only non-culprit arteries were considered. Further exclusion criteria for all cases included ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction within the preceding 60 days, any contraindication to adenosine or contrast media, previous coronary artery bypass surgery, patient age below 18 years, chronic total occlusion, severe valvular disease and an inability to consent. This was a post hoc analysis of the Complementary Value of Absolute Coronary Flow in the Assessment of Patients with Ischaemic Heart Disease (the COMPAC-Flow) study (12), in which computational fluid dynamics- (CFD-) derived absolute flow reduction in CAD was assessed using the virtuQ™ software package (13). The study was approved by Regional Ethics Committees (16/NW/0897 and 08/H1308/193) and informed consent was obtained.

2.2. Clinical data collection

Coronary angiography and FFR assessment was performed using standard techniques. During angiography, operators were encouraged to acquire clear images of the vessel of interest, with minimal overlap, panning and foreshortening, to optimise computational arterial reconstruction (14). Translesional pressure measurements under hyperaemic and baseline conditions were taken with either the PressureWire X (Abbott Laboratories) or PrimeWire Prestige (Philips Volcano). Hyperaemia was achieved with an intravenous infusion of adenosine 140 µg/kg/min. Pseudoanonymised angiography (DICOM), physiological (pressure) and other clinical data were exported to the University of Sheffield for computational processing and analysis.

2.3. Simulating coronary flow and CMVR

A full description of the virtuQ workflow, including arterial reconstruction, has previously been published (13, 15). In summary, two angiographic projections taken at least 30° apart were used to produce a 3D, axisymmetric, rigid reconstruction of the coronary artery of interest from an epipolar line method. Arteries with no appreciable stenosis were excluded, because the CFD method requires an epicardial pressure gradient to derive the flow and resistance values (13, 16). The quality of arterial reconstructions was assessed by three cardiologists who were also expert users of the virtuQ software, all of whom were blinded to the CFD results. Invasive pressure measurements, corresponding to proximal (Pa) and distal (Pd) measurements were prescribed at the reconstruction inlet and outlet respectively to define boundary conditions. A CFD simulation was then performed, resolving the Navier-Stokes and continuity equations to yield absolute coronary blood flow (QCFD), in ml/min, at the outlet of the reconstructed artery under both hyperaemic and baseline conditions. CFD simulations used standard blood parameters (density 1,056 kg/m3; viscosity 0.0035 Pa s) and modelled steady, laminar flow of a Newtonian fluid, the suitability of which has previously been demonstrated (1719). Computed CMVR (CMVRCFD) was calculated using the hydraulic equivalent of Ohm's law:

CMVRCFD=1,000PdQCFD.

A conversion factor of 1,000 was applied to yield CMVRCFD results in Woods units (WU) (Figure 1). Computed CFR (CFRCFD) was calculated as the ratio of hyperaemic and baseline QCFD:

CFRCFD=HyperaemicQCFDBaselineQCFD.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Schematic of CFD workflow.

2.4. Statistical analysis

Categorical variables are presented as frequency (percentage). The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess the spread of data. Normally distributed continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation, while skewed data are presented as median [interquartile range]. Continuous values of haemodynamic parameters were compared using the unpaired t-test, Mann–Whitney U, one-way ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis tests where appropriate, categorical variables were compared with Chi Square. Cohen's d and Hedges' g were used to compare effect size between two samples as indicated. Correlation was quantified using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r). A statistical threshold of p = 0.05 was considered significant and all statistical tests were two-tailed. The primary endpoint was a comparison of the CMVRCFD between men and women. The secondary endpoints were comparisons of other major subgroups.

3. Results

3.1. Patient characteristics

From a potential 169 patients, 144 were included. Of these, 109 were male (76%), mean age was 65 ± 10 years and 129 patients were white Caucasian. Ninety-two (64%) patients were overweight (BMI > 25) and 91 (63%) had a history of smoking. Further details of demographics and comorbidities shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Recruited patient characteristics.

Demographics
Number of patients 144
Age (years) 65 ± 10
Male gender 109 (76%)
White Caucasian 129 (90%)
Current or previous smoker 91 (63%)
BMI >25 92 (64%)
Comorbidities
Hypertension 94 (65%)
Dyslipidaemia 109 (76%)
Diabetes mellitus 37 (26%)
Chronic lung disease 16 (11%)
Valvular heart disease 7 (5%)
Previous myocardial infarction 36 (25%)
Left ventricular systolic dysfunction 29 (20%)
Arteries
LAD 103 (51%)
RCA 45 (22%)
LCx 26 (13%)
Dx 17 (8%)
OM 7 (3%)
LMS 5 (2%)

Data presented as absolute number (%) or mean ± standard deviation. BMI, body mass index; Dx diagonal; LAD, left anterior descending; LCx, left circumflex; LMS, left main stem; OM, obtuse marginal; RCA, right coronary artery.

3.2. Artery characteristics and case exclusions

From a potential 256 arterial cases, 203 were included. These comprised 103 left anterior descending (LAD) arteries, 45 right coronary arteries (RCA), 26 left circumflex (LCx) arteries, 17 diagonal (Dx) arteries, seven obtuse marginal (OM) arteries and five left main stem (LMS) arteries. Median CMVRCFD for all cases was 710 [515–980] WU. The median FFR was 0.80 [0.72–0.87] and median visually assessed lesion stenosis was 60 [50%–70%]. Cases were excluded due to inadequate pressure gradients for CFD simulation (n = 20), inadequate angiographic views for arterial reconstruction (n = 19), failure of volumetric meshing (pre-requisite for CFD simulation, n = 7), failure of CFD simulation convergence (n = 7). All 203 included cases yielded CMVRCFD results. See Figure 2 for a full consort diagram.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Consort diagram.

3.3. Comparison of CMVRCFD between key patient groups

Hyperaemic CMVRCFD was significantly higher in women 860 [650–1,205] WU vs. men 680 [520–865] WU (Z = −2.24, p = 0.02). The effect of this difference was small (Hedges' g = 0.35) (Figure 3). There were no significant differences between male and female patients for any demographic or comorbidity variables, with comparable FFR (women 0.80 [0.72–0.87], men 0.81 [0.72–0.89], Z = −0.85, p = 0.40) and percentage lesion stenosis (women 60% [50%–70%], men 60% [50%–70%], Z = 0.05, p = 0.96). Further analysis using baseline conditions, revealed resting CMVRCFD was also significantly higher in women 1,765 [1,260–2,713] WU vs. men 1,370 [990–2,020] (Z = −2.46, p = 0.01, Hedges’ g = 0.46), but CFRCFD did not vary between the sexes (women 1.74 [1.35–2.30] vs. men 1.61 [1.32–1.98], Z = −0.48, p = 0.63) (Table 2).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

CMVRCFD was significantly higher in females versus males. WU, Woods units.

Table 2.

Differences in male and female characteristics.

Demographics Male Female p
Number of patients 109 35
Age (years) 64 ± 10 67 ± 10 0.072
White Caucasian 97 (89%) 32 (91%) 0.43
Current or previous smoker 69 (63%) 23 (66%) 0.80
BMI >25 61 (56%) 18 (51%) 0.85
Comorbidities
Hypertension 71 (65%) 23 (66%) 0.95
Dyslipidaemia 81 (74%) 28 (80%) 0.49
Diabetes mellitus 27 (25%) 10 (29%) 0.59
Chronic lung disease 12 (11%) 4 (11%) 0.95
Valvular heart disease 5 (5%) 2 (6%) 0.79
Previous myocardial infarction 29 (27%) 7 (20%) 0.43
LVSD 24 (37%) 5 (31%) 0.67
Lesion characteristics
FFR 0.80 [0.72–0.87] 0.81 [0.72–0.89] 0.40
Percentage stenosis 60 [50–70] 60 [50–70] 0.96
Hyperaemic CMVRCFD (WU) 680 [520–865] 860 [650–1,205] 0.025
Baseline CMVRCFD (WU) 1,370 [990–2,020] 1,765 [1,260–2,713] 0.014
Hyperaemic QCFD (ml/min) 87 [65–120] 77 [63–106] 0.28
Baseline QCFD (ml/min) 52 [39–74] 48 [33–62] 0.23
CFRCFD 1.60 [1.32–1.97] 1.74 [1.35–2.30] 0.63

Data presented as absolute number (%), mean ± standard deviation or median [IQR]. LVSD, left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

CMVRCFD was not influenced by smoking status (Z = −0.93, p = 0.35), body mass index (BMI) > 25 (Z = −1.06, p = 0.30), hypertension (Z = 0.54, p = 0.59), dyslipidaemia (Z = −0.48, p = 0.63), diabetes (Z = −0.72, p = 0.47), chronic lung disease (Z = −0.11, p = 0.92), valvular heart disease (Z = −1.12, p = 0.26), previous myocardial infarction (Z = 1.39, p = 0.16) or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (Z = 1.55, p = 0.12) (Table 3). No significant correlations were identified between CMVRCFD with age (r =−0.08, p = 0.25), estimated glomerular filtration rate (r =0.12, p = 0.10), haemoglobin concentration (r =−0.07, p = 0.32) or haematocrit (r =−0.06, p = 0.45). CMVRCFD was also higher in patients of black and Asian ethnicity 985 [810–1,303] WU vs. white Caucasian patients 690 [520–890] WU (Z = −2.18, p = 0.03) (Supplementary Material). However, the number of patients within the black and Asian group was only eight.

Table 3.

Comparison of hyperaemic CMVRCFD between key subgroups.

Variable CMVRCFD Statistic p
Sex Male 680
[520–865]
Female 860
[650–1,205]
z = −2.24 0.0251*
Ethnicity White Caucasian 690
[520–890]
Black/Asian 985
[810–1,303]
z = −2.18 0.0293*
Current/previous smoker No 778
[563–1,123]
Yes 700
[546–933]
z = −0.93 0.352
BMI >25 No 763
[558–1,253]
Yes 665
[450–885]
z = −1.06 0.289
Hypertension No 685
[565–870]
Yes 720
[529–1,013]
z = 0.54 0.589
Dyslipidaemia No 720
[605–885]
Yes 700
[490–980]
z = −0.48 0.631
Diabetes mellitus No 715
[525–920]
Yes 680
[583–1,020]
z = −0.72 0.472
Chronic lung disease No 713
[551–950]
Yes 745
[533–983]
z = −0.11 0.920
Valvular heart disease No 700
[520–970]
Yes 800
[708–1,000]
z = −1.12 0.263
Previous MI No 720
[559–1,071]
Yes 650
[485–831]
z = 1.39 0.165
LVSD No 770
[595–1,133]
Yes 670
[430–805]
z = 1.55 0.121
Coronary artery origin Left 720
[543–1,018]
Right 640
[440–930]
z = 1.78 0.0724
Coronary artery LAD 720
[550–988]
LCx 780
[570–1,170]
RCA 640
[440–930]
H = 4.19 0.123

BMI, body mass index; LAD, left anterior descending; LCx, left circumflex; LVSD, left ventricular systolic dysfunction; MI, myocardial infarction; RCA, right coronary artery.

*Denotes statistically significant result.

3.4. Inter-artery comparison of CMVRCFD

CMVRCFD did not differ between arteries originating from, and including, the LMS 720 [543–1,018] WU vs. the RCA 640 [440–930] WU (Z = 1.80, p = 0.07). Inter-artery comparison did not show a significant difference in CMVRCFD between the LAD and main diagonal branch 720 [550–988] WU vs. the LCx and obtuse marginal branch 780 [570–1,170] WU vs. RCA 640 [440–930] WU (H = 4.19, p = 0.12) (Table 2).

4. Discussion

In this study, we analysed absolute CMVRCFD derived from invasive pressure measurements using CFD simulation in 203 coronary arteries from 144 patients (109 male, 35 female). CMRCFD was significantly higher in women when compared to men. There were no other significant differences comparing major sub-groups. CMVRCFD was higher in those of black and Asian vs. Caucasian ethnicity, but this group was very small (n = 8).

4.1. Subgroup differences in CMVR

Despite the well-established increased prevalence of CMD in women (911) and the numerous techniques for quantifying CMVR (13, 2023), no previous study has demonstrated a significant sex-specific difference in CMVR. Prior studies have shown no difference in the index of microvascular resistance (IMR) between men and women (24, 25), with apparent discrepancies in microvascular function attributed to lower CFR in women as a result of elevated baseline coronary flow (26). Our study, therefore, provides the first observation of a sex-specific difference in CMVR, suggesting a true microvascular dysfunction may contribute to sex-specific differences in CMD. The reasons underpinning these discrepancies are currently unknown, with a lack of absolute flow results (ml/min) in previous studies hindering comparisons. Differences in enrollment may have contributed; prior studies predominantly included patients with ANOCA (mean lesion percentage stenosis ranged from 20% to 30%), while our study included a large proportion of patients with haemodynamically significant CAD. The hyperaemic flow values quoted in this study are lower than previously measured with the Rayflow catheter in patients with ANOCA (27) and it is possible the flow limiting effect of epicardial stenoses blunted any sex-specific differences in CFR. Furthermore, prior studies used the mean transit time (MTT) of an intracoronary saline bolus as a surrogate for coronary flow (IMR =distal pressure × MTT) (24, 25), a technique which is subject to significant error (28). The direction of this effect appears cogent with the fact that women have a higher prevalence of CMD and that CMVR and CMD are associated (911). The underlying mechanism(s) behind sex differences in microvascular function are largely unknown. Some data suggest changes in sex hormones, particularly in the peri- and post-menopausal periods may contribute to coronary endothelial dysfunction and abnormal vasomotor control (29) and this does appear to be consistent with clinical practice. In our study, the mean age of female participants was 67 ± 10 years old (the men were 64 ± 10 years old), making menopause-induced microvascular changes a plausible explanation for the observed difference between sexes. In the females, age was not correlated with CMVRCFD (r =−0.22, p = 0.20); but as only four patients were less than 55 years old, we could not determine whether CMVR differed between the peri- and post-menopausal groups. We also demonstrated a statistically significant difference in CMVRCFD between white Caucasian vs. black and Asian patients. This however, was based upon only eight patients and so these results are unreliable.

4.2. Clinical implications

Despite being described over thirty years ago (30), CMD continues to pose a clinical challenge. Angiography alone is good at excluding epicardial disease, but is unable to diagnose CMD. Both European and American guidelines now recommend invasive assessment of CFR or IMR to support diagnosis (31, 32). CFR alone does not discriminate between epicardial and microvascular compartments, whereas indices of microvascular resistance require combined pressure and flow measurements. While the measurement of intracoronary pressure is simple, accurate and reproducible, estimating coronary flow is more challenging. Traditionally, a surrogate of flow rate was inferred from either Doppler flow velocity or the MTT of in injected bolus of room temperature saline (thermodilution). Both these techniques for estimating coronary flow are subject to variability; Doppler readings are dependent upon sensor alignment with the direction of flow and proximity to the vessel wall (33), whilst bolus thermodilution is dependent upon injection quality and is unsuitable for some bradycardic patients and is affected by side branch flow (34). Recent work has demonstrated poor agreement between Doppler and thermodilution derived CFR (mean bias 0.59 ± 1.24; R2 = 0.36, p < 0.0001) and microvascular resistance (R2 = 0.19; p < 0.0001) even in expert hands (28). The continuous infusion thermodilution technique, using a the Rayflow™ catheter, provides an alternative method of invasively deriving absolute coronary blood flow and microvascular resistance that delivers better reproducibility (35). All invasive measurements add time and expense to a standard angiogram and this may affect widespread uptake. The current results are not entirely consistent with previous work suggesting CMD in women is a functional phenotype characterized by a decreased CFR with increased resting flow but maintained hyperaemic flow and resistance (24, 25). Given the observational nature of our study and the potential limitations of the methodology, further work is needed to corroborate the findings and evaluate prognostic significance. The method for quantifying CMVRCFD in this study does however, allow for real-time assessment of the coronary microcirculation from a simple angiography and a standard FFR assessment and may influence future approaches in coronary physiological assessments.

4.3. Study limitations

First, more men were recruited than women. However, this is not unusual in studies of CAD. Second, patients with completely normal epicardial arteries were excluded. This is likely to have reduced the numbers of patients with ANOCA. This is important because it may have reduced the magnitude of the observed differences. Future studies of sex-specific differences in CMVR should also include ANOCA patients and not exclude patients with unobstructed epicardial arteries. The computational method used in this study did not account for side-branch flow, subtended myocardial mass or collateral blood supply (36). This may also have influenced CMVRCFD results, but is unlikely to have influenced between-group differences. Although the CFD method has been validated in vitro, the physiological calculations may be subject to several sources of inaccuracies introduced from both invasive pressure measurements and the various stages of the CFD workflow, not least the in silico arterial reconstruction (15, 16). Model sensitivity to these various sources of error is yet to be fully quantified and is likely to be case specific. For example, in minimally-stenosed arteries, geometric error in the reference vessel is a dominant source of inaccuracy (16). In stenosed arteries, any error in the 3D reconstruction around the region of the stenosis will contribute significantly to overall model error (37). Gravitational error of invasively measured pressure was not corrected for, which will also contribute error (38, 39), albeit to a lesser extent in increasingly stenosed cases.

5. Conclusion

In this single center study, using a computational method, we have demonstrated sex-specific differences in calculated CMVR, in patients under invasive investigation for chest pain. These findings suggest hyperaemic CMVR may be higher in women than men and may help to explain the higher prevalence of CMD in women. Further investigation and studies are required to confirm these findings.

Funding Statement

PM was funded by the Wellcome Trust (214567/Z/18/Z). For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. RG was supported by a National Institute for Health and Care Research UK Clinical Lectureship. This independent research was carried out at the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Sheffield Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203321). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Sheffield Regional Ethics Committees (16/NW/0897 and 08/H1308/193). The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

PM and JG conceived the original idea for the study and collected the clinical data. DH, IH, PL and AN supported software development and modeling. LA-R led the physiological reconstruction and simulations, supported by DT and TN, DT led the statistical analysis. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of interest

PM, JG, PL and DH are named as an inventors on a University of Sheffield patent that describes elements of the CFD method.

The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1159160/full#supplementary-material

Table1.docx (122.9KB, docx)

References

  • 1.Morris PD, Al-Lamee RK, Berry C. Coronary physiological assessment in the catheter laboratory: haemodynamics, clinical assessment and future perspectives. Heart. (2022) 108(21):1737–46. 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-318743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, Brennan JM, Redberg RF, Anderson HV, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med. (2010) 362(10):886–95. 10.1056/NEJMoa0907272 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mileva N, Nagumo S, Mizukami T, Sonck J, Berry C, Gallinoro E, et al. Prevalence of coronary microvascular disease and coronary vasospasm in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. (2022) 11(7):e023207. 10.1161/JAHA.121.023207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Corcoran D, Young R, Adlam D, McConnachie A, Mangion K, Ripley D, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction in patients with stable coronary artery disease: the CE-MARC 2 coronary physiology sub-study. Int J Cardiol. (2018) 266:7–14. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.04.061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lee JM, Jung J-H, Hwang D, Park J, Fan Y, Na S-H, et al. Coronary flow reserve and microcirculatory resistance in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2016) 67(10):1158–69. 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.12.053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Jin X, Yoon MH, Seo KW, Tahk SJ, Lim HS, Yang HM, et al. Usefulness of hyperemic microvascular resistance index as a predictor of clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Korean Circ J. (2015) 45(3):194–201. 10.4070/kcj.2015.45.3.194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nishi T, Murai T, Ciccarelli G, Shah SV, Kobayashi Y, Derimay F, et al. Prognostic value of coronary microvascular function measured immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention in stable coronary artery disease: an international multicenter study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. (2019) 12(9):e007889. 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.007889 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ford TJ, Stanley B, Good R, Rocchiccioli P, McEntegart M, Watkins S, et al. Stratified medical therapy using invasive coronary function testing in angina: the CorMicA trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2018) 72(23 Pt A):2841–55. 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Daly C, Clemens F, Lopez Sendon JL, Tavazzi L, Boersma E, Danchin N, et al. Gender differences in the management and clinical outcome of stable angina. Circulation. (2006) 113(4):490–8. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.561647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bugiardini R, Bairey Merz CN. Angina with “normal” coronary ArteriesA changing philosophy. JAMA. (2005) 293(4):477–84. 10.1001/jama.293.4.477 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Humphries KH, Pu A, Gao M, Carere RG, Pilote L. Angina with “normal” coronary arteries: sex differences in outcomes. Am Heart J. (2008) 155(2):375–81. 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.10.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Aubiniere-Robb L, Gosling R, Taylor DJ, Newman T, Rodney D, Ian Halliday H, et al. The complementary value of absolute coronary flow in the assessment of patients with ischaemic heart disease (the COMPAC-flow study). Nat Cardiovasc Res. (2022) 1(7):611–6. 10.1038/s44161-022-00091-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Morris PD, Gosling R, Zwierzak I, Evans H, Aubiniere-Robb L, Czechowicz K, et al. A novel method for measuring absolute coronary blood flow & microvascular resistance in patients with ischaemic heart disease. Cardiovasc Res. (2020) 117(6):1567–77. 10.1093/cvr/cvaa220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ghobrial M, Haley HA, Gosling R, Rammohan V, Lawford PV, Hose DR, et al. The new role of diagnostic angiography in coronary physiological assessment. Heart. (2021) 107(10):783. 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-318289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Solanki R, Gosling R, Rammohan V, Pederzani G, Garg P, Heppenstall J, et al. The importance of three dimensional coronary artery reconstruction accuracy when computing virtual fractional flow reserve from invasive angiography. Sci Rep. (2021) 11(1):19694. 10.1038/s41598-021-99065-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Taylor DJ, Feher J, Czechowicz K, Halliday I, Hose DR, Gosling R, et al. Validation of a novel numerical model to predict regionalized blood flow in the coronary arteries. Eur Heart J Digit Health. (2023) 4(2):81–9. 10.1093/ehjdh/ztac077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Morris PD. Computational fluid dynamics modelling of coronary artery disease. Sheffield: University of Sheffield; (2015). https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/11772/ [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Huckaba CE, Hahn AW. A generalized approach to the modeling of arterial blood flow. Bull Math Biophys. (1968) 30(4):645–62. 10.1007/BF02476681 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Brown AG, Shi Y, Marzo A, Staicu C, Valverde I, Beerbaum P, et al. Accuracy vs. computational time: translating aortic simulations to the clinic. J Biomech. (2012) 45(3):516–23. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.11.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Fearon WF, Balsam LB, Farouque HM, Caffarelli AD, Robbins RC, Fitzgerald PJ, et al. Novel index for invasively assessing the coronary microcirculation. Circulation. (2003) 107(25):3129–32. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000080700.98607.D1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nolte F, van de Hoef TP, Meuwissen M, Voskuil M, Chamuleau SA, Henriques JP, et al. Increased hyperaemic coronary microvascular resistance adds to the presence of myocardial ischaemia. EuroIntervention. (2014) 9(12):1423–31. 10.4244/EIJV9I12A240 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Gallinoro E, Candreva A, Fournier S, Keulards DCJ, et al. Microvascular resistance reserve for assessment of coronary microvascular function: JACC technology corner. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2021) 78(15):1541–9. 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.08.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.van ‘t Veer M, Adjedj J, Wijnbergen I, Tóth GG, Rutten MC, Barbato E, et al. Novel monorail infusion catheter for volumetric coronary blood flow measurement in humans: in vitro validation. EuroIntervention. (2016) 12(6):701–7. 10.4244/EIJV12I6A114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kobayashi Y, Fearon WF, Honda Y, Tanaka S, Pargaonkar V, Fitzgerald PJ, et al. Effect of sex differences on invasive measures of coronary microvascular dysfunction in patients with angina in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. (2015) 8(11):1433–41. 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.03.045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chung J-H, Lee Kyung E, Lee Joo M, Her A-Y, Kim Chee H, Choi Ki H, et al. Effect of sex difference of coronary microvascular dysfunction on long-term outcomes in deferred lesions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2020) 13(14):1669–79. 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Nardone M, McCarthy M, Ardern CI, Nield LE, Toleva O, Cantor WJ, et al. Concurrently low coronary flow reserve and low Index of microvascular resistance are associated with elevated resting coronary flow in patients with chest pain and nonobstructive coronary arteries. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. (2022) 15(3):e011323. 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.011323 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fournier S, Keulards DCJ, van ‘t Veer M, Colaiori I, Di Gioia G, Zimmermann FM, et al. Normal values of thermodilution-derived absolute coronary blood flow and microvascular resistance in humans. EuroIntervention. (2020) 17(4):e309–e16. 10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00684 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Demir OM, Boerhout CKM, de Waard GA, van de Hoef TP, Patel N, Beijk MAM, et al. Comparison of Doppler flow velocity and thermodilution derived indexes of coronary physiology. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2022) 15(10):1060–70. 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.03.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gilligan DM, Quyyumi AA, Cannon R, III. Effects of physiological levels of estrogen on coronary vasomotor function in postmenopausal women. Circulation. (1994) 89(6):2545–51. 10.1161/01.CIR.89.6.2545 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Cannon RO, III, Epstein SE. “microvascular angina” as a cause of chest pain with angiographically normal coronary arteries. Am J Cardiol. (1988) 61(15):1338–43. 10.1016/0002-9149(88)91180-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, Capodanno D, Barbato E, Funck-Brentano C, et al. 2019 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes: the task force for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes of the European society of cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. (2019) 41(3):407–77. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gulati M, Levy PD, Mukherjee D, Amsterdam E, Bhatt DL, Birtcher KK, et al. 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation. (2021) 144(22):e368–454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Doucette JW, Corl PD, Payne HM, Flynn AE, Goto M, Nassi M, et al. Validation of a Doppler guide wire for intravascular measurement of coronary artery flow velocity. Circulation. (1992) 85(5):1899–911. 10.1161/01.CIR.85.5.1899 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Pijls NHJ, De Bruyne B, Smith L, Aarnoudse W, Barbato E, Bartunek J, et al. Coronary thermodilution to assess flow reserve. Circulation. (2002) 105(21):2482–6. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000017199.09457.3D [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Gallinoro E, Bertolone Dario T, Fernandez-Peregrina E, Paolisso P, Bermpeis K, Esposito G, et al. Reproducibility of bolus versus continuous thermodilution for assessment of coronary microvascular function in patients with ANOCA. EuroIntervention. (2023) 19(2):e155–e66. 10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Taylor DJ, Feher J, Halliday I, Hose DR, Gosling R, Aubiniere-Robb L, et al. Refining our understanding of the flow through coronary artery branches; revisiting Murray’s law in human epicardial coronary arteries. Front Physiol. (2022) 13:871912. 10.3389/fphys.2022.871912 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sturdy J, Kjernlie JK, Nydal HM, Eck VG, Hellevik LR. Uncertainty quantification of computational coronary stenosis assessment and model based mitigation of image resolution limitations. J Comput Sci. (2019) 31:137–50. 10.1016/j.jocs.2019.01.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tar B, Ágoston A, Üveges Á, Szabó GT, Szűk T, Komócsi A, et al. Pressure- and 3D-derived coronary flow reserve with hydrostatic pressure correction: comparison with intracoronary Doppler measurements. J Pers Med. (2022) 12(5):780. 10.3390/jpm12050780 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Üveges Á, Tar B, Jenei C, Czuriga D, Papp Z, Csanádi Z, et al. The impact of hydrostatic pressure on the result of physiological measurements in various coronary segments. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. (2021) 37(1):5–14. 10.1007/s10554-020-01971-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table1.docx (122.9KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.


Articles from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES