Relation of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Frame Count to Invasively Measured Coronary Physiologic Indexes

In the international guidelines, higher thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count (TFC) is indicated as evidence of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD). However, the association of TFC with invasively measured coronary physiologic parameters such as coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) remains unclear. Patients without significant epicardial coronary lesions underwent invasive coronary physiologic assessment using a thermodilution method in the left anterior descending artery. Corrected TFC (cTFC) was evaluated on coronary angiography. The cut-off values of CFR and IMR were defined as ≤2.0 and >25, and patients with abnormal CFR and/or IMR were defined as having CMD. This study aimed to assess whether cTFC >25, a cut-off value in the guidelines, was diagnostic of the presence of CMD. Of the 137 patients, 34 (24.8%) and 32 (23.3%) had cTFC >25 and CMD, respectively. The rate of CMD was not significantly different between patients with and without cTFC >25. cTFC was weakly correlated with at rest and hyperemic mean transit time and IMR, whereas no significant correlation was observed between cTFC and CFR. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed the poor diagnostic ability of cTFC for abnormal CFR and IMR and the presence of CMD. In conclusion, in patients without epicardial coronary lesions, cTFC as a continuous value and with the cut-off value of 25 was not diagnostic of abnormal CFR and IMR and the presence of CMD. Our results did not support the use of cTFC in CMD evaluation. In the international guidelines, higher thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count (TFC) is indicated as evidence of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD). However, the association of TFC with invasively measured coronary physiologic parameters such as coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) remains unclear. Patients without significant epicardial coronary lesions underwent invasive coronary physiologic assessment using a thermodilution method in the left anterior descending artery. Corrected TFC (cTFC) was evaluated on coronary angiography. The cut-off values of CFR and IMR were defined as ≤2.0 and >25, and patients with abnormal CFR and/or IMR were defined as having CMD. This study aimed to assess whether cTFC >25, a cut-off value in the guidelines, was diagnostic of the presence of CMD. Of the 137 patients, 34 (24.8%) and 32 (23.3%) had cTFC >25 and CMD, respectively. The rate of CMD was not significantly different between patients with and without cTFC >25. cTFC was weakly correlated with at rest and hyperemic mean transit time and IMR, whereas no significant correlation was observed between cTFC and CFR. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed the poor diagnostic ability of cTFC for abnormal CFR and IMR and the presence of CMD. In conclusion, in patients without epicardial coronary lesions, cTFC as a continuous value and with the cut-off value of 25 was not diagnostic of abnormal CFR and IMR and the presence of CMD. Our results did not support the use of cTFC in CMD evaluation.