Practical Approach for Angina and Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries: A State-of-the-Art Review

Anginal symptoms are frequently encountered in patients without the presence of significant obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). It is increasingly recognized that vasomotor disorders, such as an abnormal vasodilatory capacity of the coronary microcirculation or coronary vasospasm, are the dominant pathophysiological substrate in these patients. Although the evidence with respect to angina in patients with non-obstructive coronary arteries is accumulating, the diagnosis and treatment of these patients remains challenging. In this review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview regarding the pathophysiological origins of angina with non-obstructive coronary arteries disorders and its diagnostic and therapeutic considerations. Hereby, we provide a practical approach for the management of patents with angina and non-obstructive CAD

Prognostic value of microvascular resistance and its association to fractional flow reserve:a DEFINE-FLOW substudy

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of hyperemic microvascular resistance (HMR) and its relationship with hyperemic stenosis resistance (HSR) index and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in stable coronary artery disease. METHODS: This is a substudy of the DEFINE-FLOW cohort (NCT02328820), which evaluated the prognosis of lesions (n=456) after combined FFR and coronary flow reserve (CFR) assessment in a prospective, non-blinded, non-randomised, multicentre study in 12 centres in Europe and Japan. Participants (n=430) were evaluated by wire-based measurement of coronary pressure, flow and vascular resistance (ComboWire XT, Phillips Volcano, San Diego, California, USA). RESULTS: Mean FFR and CFR were 0.82±0.10 and 2.2±0.6, respectively. When divided according to FFR and CFR thresholds (above and below 0.80 and 2.0, respectively), HMR was highest in lesions with FFR>0.80 and CFR<2.0 (n=99) compared with lesions with FFR≤0.80 and CFR≥2.0 (n=68) (2.92±1.2 vs 1.91±0.64 mm Hg/cm/s, p<0.001). The FFR value was proportional to the ratio between HMR and the HMR+HSR (total resistance), 95% limits of agreement (−0.032; 0.019), bias (−0.003±0.02) and correlation (r(2)=0.98, p<0.0001). Cox regression model using HMR as continuous parameter for target vessel failure showed an HR of 1.51, 95% CI (0.9 to 2.4), p=0.10. CONCLUSIONS: Increased HMR was not associated with a higher rate of adverse clinical events, in this population of mainly stable patients. FFR can be equally well expressed as HMR/HMR+HSR, thereby providing an alternative conceptual formulation linking epicardial severity with microvascular resistance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02328820

The role of myocardial blood volume in the pathophysiology of angina with non-obstructed coronary arteries: The MICORDIS study

Background: Angina with Non-Obstructed Coronary Arteries (ANOCA) involves abnormal vasomotor responses. While reduced coronary flow is an established contributor to myocardial hypoxia, myocardial blood volume (MBV) independently regulates myocardial oxygen uptake but its role in ANOCA remains unclear. Objectives: We hypothesized that reduced MBV contributes to ANOCA, and associates with insulin resistance in ANOCA. Methods: MBV in ANOCA patients was compared to age- and sex-matched healthy controls. ANOCA patients underwent coronary angiography with invasive coronary function testing (CFT) to identify vasospasm and coronary microvascular dysfunction. In all subjects MBV was quantified at baseline, during hyperinsulinemia and during dobutamine-induced stress using myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE). The hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp was used to assess insulin resistance. Results: Twenty-eight ANOCA patients (21% men, 56.8 ± 8.6 years) and 28 healthy controls (21% men, 56.5 ± 7.0 years) were included. During CFT 11% of patients showed epicardial vasospasm, 39% microvascular vasospasm, 25% coronary microvascular dysfunction, and 11% of patients had a negative CFT. ANOCA patients had significant lower insulin-sensitivity (p < 0.01). During MCE, ANOCA patients showed a significantly lower MBV at baseline (0.388 vs 0.438 mL/mL, p = 0.04), during hyperinsulinemia (0.395 vs 0.447 mL/mL, p = 0.02), and during dobutamine-induced stress (0.401 vs 0.476 mL/mL, p = 0.030). Conclusions: In ANOCA patients MBV is diminished at baseline, during hyperinsulinemia and dobutamine-induced stress in the absence of differences in microvascular recruitment. These findings support the presence of capillary rarefaction in ANOCA patients. ANOCA patients showed metabolic insulin resistance, but insulin did not acutely alter myocardial perfusion

Validation of resting full-cycle ratio and diastolic pressure ratio with [15O]H2O positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are invasive techniques used to evaluate the hemodynamic significance of coronary artery stenosis. These methods have been validated through perfusion imaging and clinical trials. New invasive pressure ratios that do not require hyperemia have recently emerged, and it is essential to confirm their diagnostic efficacy. The aim of this study was to validate the resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) and the diastolic pressure ratio (dPR), against [15O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. A total of 129 symptomatic patients with an intermediate risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) were included. All patients underwent cardiac [15O]H2O PET with quantitative assessment of resting and hyperemic myocardial perfusion. Within a 2 week period, coronary angiography was performed. Intracoronary pressure measurements were obtained in 320 vessels and RFR, dPR, and FFR were computed. PET derived regional hyperemic myocardial blood flow (hMBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) served as reference standards. In coronary arteries with stenoses (43%, 136 of 320), the overall diagnostic accuracies of RFR, dPR, and FFR did not differ when PET hyperemic MBF < 2.3 ml min−1 (69.9%, 70.6%, and 77.1%, respectively) and PET MPR < 2.5 (70.6%, 71.3%, and 66.9%, respectively) were considered as the reference for myocardial ischemia. Non-significant differences between the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were found between the different indices. Furthermore, the integration of FFR with RFR (or dPR) does not enhance the diagnostic information already achieved by FFR in the characterization of ischemia via PET perfusion. In conclusion, the novel non-hyperemic pressure ratios, RFR and dPR, have a diagnostic performance comparable to FFR in assessing regional myocardial ischemia. These findings suggest that RFR and dPR may be considered as an FFR alternative for invasively guiding revascularization treatment in symptomatic patients with CAD

The Diagnostic Value of ECG Characteristics for Vasospastic and Microvascular Angina: A Systematic Review

Background: Coronary vascular dysfunction comprises VSA and/or MVA and is more common in women than in men with angina without obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA). Invasive coronary function testing is considered the reference test for diagnosis, but its burden on patients is large. We aimed to investigate the potential of electrocardiography (ECG) as noninvasive marker for vasospastic angina (VSA) and microvascular angina (MVA) diagnosis. Methods: We systematically screened Pubmed and EMBASE databases for studies reporting on ECG characteristics in ANOCA patients with (a suspicion of) coronary vascular dysfunction. We assessed study quality using QUADAS-2. We extracted data on diagnostic values of different ECG characteristics and analyzed whether the studies were sex-stratified. Results: Thirty publications met our criteria, 13 reported on VSA and 17 on MVA. The majority addressed repolarization-related ECG parameters. Only 1 of the 13 VSA papers and 4 of the 17 MVA papers showed diagnostic accuracy measures of the ECG characteristics. The presence of early repolarization, T-wave alternans, and inverted U waves showed of predictive value for VSA diagnosis. The QTc interval was predictive for MVA diagnosis in all six studies reporting on QTc interval. Sex-stratified results were reported in only 5 of the 30 studies and 3 of those observed sex-based differences. Conclusions: ECG features are not widely evaluated in diagnostic studies for VSA and MVA. Those features predictive for VSA and MVA diagnosis mostly point to repolarization abnormalities and may contribute to noninvasive risk stratification

ANOCA patients with and without coronary vasomotor dysfunction present with limited electrocardiographic remodeling

Background: Coronary vasomotor dysfunction (CVDys) comprises coronary vasospasm (CVS) and/or coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) and is highly prevalent in patients with angina and non-obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA). Invasive coronary function testing (CFT) to diagnose CVDys is becoming more common, enabling pathophysiologic research of CVDys. This study aims to explore the electrophysiological characteristics of ANOCA patients with CVDys. Methods: We collected pre-procedural 12-lead electrocardiograms of ANOCA patients with CVS (n = 35), CMD (n = 24), CVS/CMD (n = 26) and patients without CVDys (CFT-, n = 23) who participated in the NL-CFT registry and underwent CFT. Heart axis and conduction times were compared between patients with CVS, CMD or CVS/CMD and patients without CVDys. Results: Heart axis, heart rate, PQ interval and QRS duration were comparable between the groups. A small prolongation of the QT-interval corrected with Bazett (QTcB) and Fridericia (QTcF) was observed in patients with CVDys compared to patients without CVDys (CVS vs CFT-: QTcB = 422 ± 18 vs 414 ± 18 ms (p = 0.14), QTcF = 410 ± 14 vs 406 ± 12 ms (p = 0.21); CMD vs CFT-: QTcB = 426 ± 17 vs 414 ± 18 ms (p = 0.03), QTcF = 413 ± 11 vs 406 ± 12 ms (p = 0.04); CVS/CMD vs CFT-: QTcB = 424 ± 17 vs 414 ± 18 ms (p = 0.05), QTcF = 414 ± 14 vs 406 ± 12 ms (p = 0.04)). Conclusions: Pre-procedural 12-lead electrocardiograms were comparable between patients with and without CVDys undergoing CFT except for a slightly longer QTc interval in patients with CVDys compared to patients without CVDys, suggesting limited cardiac remodeling in patients with CVDys

TCT-624 Real-time utilisation of instant wave-free ratio (iFR) is feasible when performed by clinicians: results of the ADVISE in-practice, an international, multi-centre evaluation of iFR in clinical practice

n/

Fractional Flow Reserve/ Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Discordance in Angiographically Intermediate Coronary Stenoses: An Analysis Using Doppler-Derived Coronary Flow Measurements

OBJECTIVES The study sought to determine the coronary flow characteristics of angiographically intermediate stenoses classified as discordant by fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). BACKGROUND Discordance between FFR and iFR occurs in up to 20% of cases. No comparisons have been reported between the coronary flow characteristics of FFR/iFR discordant and angiographically unobstructed vessels. METHODS Baseline and hyperemic coronary flow velocity and coronary flow reserve (CFR) were compared across 5 vessel groups: FFRþ/iFRþ (108 vessels, n 1�4 91), FFR–/iFRþ (28 vessels, n 1�4 24), FFRþ/iFR– (22 vessels, n 1�4 22), FFR–/iFR– (208 vessels, n 1�4 154), and an unobstructed vessel group (201 vessels, n 1�4 153), in a post hoc analysis of the largest combined pressure and Doppler flow velocity registry (IDEAL [Iberian-Dutch-English] collaborators study). RESULTS FFRdisagreedwithiFRin14%(50of366).Baselineflowvelocitywassimilaracrossall5vesselgroups,includingthe unobstructed vessel group (p 1�4 0.34 for variance). In FFRþ/iFR– discordants, hyperemic flow velocity and CFR were similar to both FFR–/iFR– and unobstructed groups; 37.6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 26.1 to 50.4) cm/s vs. 40.0 [IQR: 29.7 to 52.3] cm/s and 42.2 [IQR: 33.8 to 53.2] cm/s and CFR 2.36 [IQR: 1.93 to 2.81] vs. 2.41 [IQR: 1.84 to 2.94] and 2.50 [IQR: 2.11 to 3.17], respectively (p > 0.05 for all). In FFR–/iFRþ discordants, hyperemic flow velocity, and CFR were similar to the FFRþ/iFRþ group; 28.2 (IQR: 20.5 to 39.7) cm/s versus 23.5 (IQR: 16.4 to 34.9) cm/s and CFR 1.44 (IQR: 1.29 to 1.85) versus 1.39 (IQR: 1.06 to 1.88), respectively (p > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS FFR/iFR disagreement was explained by differences in hyperemic coronary flow velocity. Furthermore, coronary stenoses classified as FFRþ/iFR– demonstrated similar coronary flow characteristics to angiographically unobstructed vessels