Coronary microvascular dysfunction assessment: A comparative analysis of procedural aspects.
chest pain
coronary microvascular dysfunction
hemodynamic assessment
ischemia nonobstructive coronary artery
stable angina
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Mar 2024
23 Mar 2024
Historique:
revised:
01
02
2024
received:
23
12
2023
accepted:
16
02
2024
medline:
23
3
2024
pubmed:
23
3
2024
entrez:
23
3
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Full adoption of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) assessment faces challenges due to its invasive nature and concerns about prolonged procedure time and increased contrast and/or radiation exposure. We compared procedural aspects of CMD invasive assessment to diagnostic left heart catheterization (DLHC) in patients with chest pain who were not found to have obstructive coronary artery disease. A total of 227 patients in the Coronary Microvascular Disease Registry were compared to 1592 patients who underwent DLHC from August 2021 to November 2023. The two cohorts were compared using propensity-score matching; primary outcomes were fluoroscopy time and total contrast use. The participants' mean age was 64.1 ± 12.6 years. CMD-assessed patients were more likely to be female (66.5% vs. 45.2%, p < 0.001) and have hypertension (80.2% vs. 44.5%, p < 0.001), history of stroke (11.9% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.002), and history of myocardial infarction (20.3% vs. 7.7%, p < 0.001). CMD assessment was safe, without any reported adverse outcomes. A propensity-matched analysis showed that patients who underwent CMD assessment had slightly higher median contrast exposure (50 vs. 40 mL, p < 0.001), and slightly longer fluoroscopy time (6.9 vs. 4.7 min, p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in radiation dose (209.3 vs. 219 mGy, p = 0.58) and overall procedure time (31 vs. 29 min, p = 0.37). Compared to DLHC, CMD assessment is safe and requires only slightly additional contrast use (10 mL) and slightly longer fluoroscopy time (2 min) without clinical implications. These findings emphasize the favorable safety and feasibility of invasive CMD assessment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Full adoption of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) assessment faces challenges due to its invasive nature and concerns about prolonged procedure time and increased contrast and/or radiation exposure. We compared procedural aspects of CMD invasive assessment to diagnostic left heart catheterization (DLHC) in patients with chest pain who were not found to have obstructive coronary artery disease.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 227 patients in the Coronary Microvascular Disease Registry were compared to 1592 patients who underwent DLHC from August 2021 to November 2023. The two cohorts were compared using propensity-score matching; primary outcomes were fluoroscopy time and total contrast use.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The participants' mean age was 64.1 ± 12.6 years. CMD-assessed patients were more likely to be female (66.5% vs. 45.2%, p < 0.001) and have hypertension (80.2% vs. 44.5%, p < 0.001), history of stroke (11.9% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.002), and history of myocardial infarction (20.3% vs. 7.7%, p < 0.001). CMD assessment was safe, without any reported adverse outcomes. A propensity-matched analysis showed that patients who underwent CMD assessment had slightly higher median contrast exposure (50 vs. 40 mL, p < 0.001), and slightly longer fluoroscopy time (6.9 vs. 4.7 min, p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in radiation dose (209.3 vs. 219 mGy, p = 0.58) and overall procedure time (31 vs. 29 min, p = 0.37).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to DLHC, CMD assessment is safe and requires only slightly additional contrast use (10 mL) and slightly longer fluoroscopy time (2 min) without clinical implications. These findings emphasize the favorable safety and feasibility of invasive CMD assessment.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : MedStar Health Research Institute
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Godo S, Suda A, Takahashi J, Yasuda S, Shimokawa H. Coronary microvascular dysfunction. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2021;41:1625‐1637.
Ford TJ, Berry C. How to diagnose and manage angina without obstructive coronary artery disease: lessons from the British Heart Foundation CorMicA trial. Interv Cardiol Rev. 2019;14:76‐82.
Gulati M, Levy PD, Mukherjee D, et al. 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:e368‐e454.
Jansen TPJ, Konst RE, Elias‐Smale SE, et al. Assessing microvascular dysfunction in angina with unobstructed Coronary Arteries. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;78:1471‐1479.
Smilowitz NR, Toleva O, Chieffo A, Perera D, Berry C. Coronary microvascular disease in contemporary clinical practice. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;16:e012568.
Spione F, Arevalos V, Gabani R, Sabaté M, Brugaletta S. Coronary microvascular angina: a state‐of‐the‐art review. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:800918.
Medranda GA, Case BC, Hashim H, et al. Early real‐world experience performing invasive hemodynamic assessment of the coronary microvasculature. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2022;40:53‐54.
Mangiacapra F, Viscusi MM, Verolino G, et al. Invasive assessment of coronary microvascular function. J Clin Med. 2021;11:228.
Travieso A, Jeronimo‐Baza A, Faria D, Shabbir A, Mejia‐Rentería H, Escaned J. Invasive evaluation of coronary microvascular dysfunction. J Nucl Cardiol. 2022;29:2474‐2486.
Mehta PK, Huang J, Levit RD, Malas W, Waheed N, Bairey Merz CN. Ischemia and no obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA): a narrative review. Atherosclerosis. 2022;363:8‐21.
Aldiwani H, Mahdai S, Alhatemi G, Bairey Merz CN. Microvascular angina: diagnosis and management. European Cardiol Rev. 2021;16:e46.
Bairey Merz CN, Pepine CJ, Shimokawa H, Berry C. Treatment of coronary microvascular dysfunction. Cardiovasc Res. 2020;116:856‐870.
Dimitriadis K, Iliakis P, Pyrpyris N, et al. Coronary sinus narrowing therapy: a “reducer” for angina and beyond. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2023;57:96‐105.
Kenkre TS, Malhotra P, Johnson BD, et al. Ten‐year mortality in the WISE study (Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation). Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017;10:e003863.
Bairey Merz CN, Kelsey SF, Pepine CJ, et al. The women's ischemia syndrome evaluation (WISE) study: protocol design, methodology and feasibility report. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:1453‐1461.
Safdar B, D'Onofrio G, Dziura J, Russell RR, Johnson C, Sinusas AJ. Prevalence and characteristics of coronary microvascular dysfunction among chest pain patients in the emergency department. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2020;9:5‐13.
Dilsizian V, Bacharach SL, Beanlands RS, et al. ASNC imaging guidelines/SNMMI procedure standard for positron emission tomography (PET) nuclear cardiology procedures. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:1187‐1226.
Ng AKY, Ng PY, Ip A, Jim MH, Siu CW. Association between radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention and long‐term mortality. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e021256.
Modi, K, Padala, SA, Gupta, M. Contrast‐induced nephropathy. Contrast‐induced nephropathy. [Updated 2023 Jul 24]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2023. Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448066/
Nie Z, Liu Y, Wang C, Sun G, Chen G, Lu Z. Safe limits of contrast media for contrast‐induced nephropathy: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Front Med. 2021;8:701062.
Fazel R, Curtis J, Wang Y, et al. Determinants of fluoroscopy time for invasive coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the NCDR(®). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82:1091‐1105.
Yap EML, Magno LP, Macaraeg CA, et al. Radiation dose in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: establishment of diagnostic reference levels at the Philippine Heart Center. Interv Cardiol Rev. 2021;16:e13.