Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction, Microvascular Angina, and Treatment Strategies

AbstractAngina without coronary artery disease (CAD) has substantial morbidity and is present in 10% to 30% of patients undergoing angiography. Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is present in 50% to 65% of these patients. The optimal treatment of this cohort is undefined. We performed a systematic review to evaluate treatment strategies for objectively-defined CMD in the absence of CAD. We included studies assessing therapy in human subjects with angina and coronary flow reserve or myocardial perfusion reserve <2.5 by positron emission tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, dilution methods, or intracoronary Doppler in the absence of coronary artery stenosis ≥50% or structural heart disease. Only 8 papers met the strict inclusion criteria. The papers were heterogeneous, using different treatments, endpoints, and definitions of CMD. The small sample sizes severely limit the power of these studies, with an average of 11 patients per analysis. Studies evaluating sildenafil, quinapril, estrogen, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation application demonstrated benefits in their respective endpoints. No benefit was found with L-arginine, doxazosin, pravastatin, and diltiazem. Our systematic review highlights that there is little data to support therapies for CMD. We assess the data meeting rigorous inclusion criteria and review the related but excluded published data. We additionally describe the next steps needed to address this research gap, including a standardized definition of CMD, routine assessment of CMD in studies of chest pain without obstructive CAD, and specific therapy assessment in the population with confirmed CMD

Cardiometabolic biomarker patterns associated with cardiac MRI defined fibrosis and microvascular dysfunction in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

IntroductionHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a complex disease process influenced by metabolic disorders, systemic inflammation, myocardial fibrosis, and microvascular dysfunction. The goal of our study is to identify potential relationships between plasma biomarkers and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging markers in patients with HFpEF.MethodsNineteen subjects with HFpEF and 15 age-matched healthy controls were enrolled and underwent multiparametric CMR and plasma biomarker analysis using the Olink® Cardiometabolic Panel (Olink Proteomics, Uppsala, Sweden). Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) was used to characterize CMR and biomarker variables that differentiate the subject groups into two principal components. Orthogonal projection to latent structures by partial least squares (OPLS) analysis was used to identify biomarker patterns that correlate with myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) and extracellular volume (ECV) mapping.ResultsA PLS-DA could differentiate between HFpEF and normal controls with two significant components explaining 79% (Q2 = 0.47) of the differences. For OPLS, there were 7 biomarkers that significantly correlated with ECV (R2 = 0.85, Q = 0.53) and 6 biomarkers that significantly correlated with MPR (R2 = 0.92, Q2 = 0.32). Only 1 biomarker significantly correlated with both ECV and MPR.DiscussionPatients with HFpEF have unique imaging and biomarker patterns that suggest mechanisms associated with metabolic disease, inflammation, fibrosis and microvascular dysfunction

Table1_Cardiometabolic biomarker patterns associated with cardiac MRI defined fibrosis and microvascular dysfunction in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.docx

IntroductionHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a complex disease process influenced by metabolic disorders, systemic inflammation, myocardial fibrosis, and microvascular dysfunction. The goal of our study is to identify potential relationships between plasma biomarkers and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging markers in patients with HFpEF.MethodsNineteen subjects with HFpEF and 15 age-matched healthy controls were enrolled and underwent multiparametric CMR and plasma biomarker analysis using the Olink® Cardiometabolic Panel (Olink Proteomics, Uppsala, Sweden). Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) was used to characterize CMR and biomarker variables that differentiate the subject groups into two principal components. Orthogonal projection to latent structures by partial least squares (OPLS) analysis was used to identify biomarker patterns that correlate with myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) and extracellular volume (ECV) mapping.ResultsA PLS-DA could differentiate between HFpEF and normal controls with two significant components explaining 79% (Q2 = 0.47) of the differences. For OPLS, there were 7 biomarkers that significantly correlated with ECV (R2 = 0.85, Q = 0.53) and 6 biomarkers that significantly correlated with MPR (R2 = 0.92, Q2 = 0.32). Only 1 biomarker significantly correlated with both ECV and MPR.DiscussionPatients with HFpEF have unique imaging and biomarker patterns that suggest mechanisms associated with metabolic disease, inflammation, fibrosis and microvascular dysfunction.</p