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

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

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

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

Efficacy and safety of the endothelin-1 receptor antagonist macitentan in epicardial and microvascular vasospasm: a proof-of-concept study

BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients diagnosed with angina due to epicardial or microvascular coronary artery spasm (CAS) is challenging because patients often remain symptomatic despite conventional pharmacological therapy. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential cross-over proof-of-concept study, we compared the efficacy and safety of macitentan, a potent inhibitor of the endothelin-1 receptor, to placebo in symptomatic patients with CAS despite background pharmacological treatment. METHODS: Patients with CAS diagnosed by invasive spasm provocation testing with >3 anginal attacks per week despite pharmacological treatment were considered for participation. Participants received either 10 mg of macitentan or placebo daily for 28 days as add-on treatment. After a wash-out period patients were crossed over to the alternate treatment arm. The primary endpoint was the difference in anginal burden calculated as [1] the duration (in minutes) * severity (on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scale 1-10); and [2] the frequency of angina attacks * severity during medication use compared to the run-in phase. RESULTS: 28 patients of whom 22 females (79%) and a mean age of 55.3 ± 7.6 completed the entire study protocol (epicardial CAS n = 19 (68), microvascular CAS n = 9 (32)). Change in both indices of anginal burden were not different during treatment with add-on macitentan as compared to add-on placebo (duration*severity: -9 [-134 78] vs -45 [-353 11], p = 0.136 and frequency*severity: -1.7 [-5.8 1.2] vs -1.8 [-6.2 0.3], p = 0.767). The occurrence and nature of self-reported adverse events were closely similar between the treatment phase with macitentan and placebo. CONCLUSION: In patients with angina due to epicardial or microvascular CAS despite background pharmacological treatment, 28 days of add-on treatment with the ET-1 receptor antagonist, macitentan 10 mg daily, did not reduce anginal burden compared to add-on treatment with placebo.Trial Registrationhttps://trialsearch.who.int/, Identifier: EUCTR2018-002623-42-NL. Registration date: 20 February 2019

Post-spastic flow recovery time to document vasospasm induced ischemia during acetylcholine provocation testing

Background: Intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) provocation is an established method for diagnosing epicardial and microvascular vasospasm in contemporary clinical practice. We hypothesize that ACh-induced vasospasm is followed by post-spastic reactive hyperemia (PSRH), which is measured as an increased flow-recovery time. Objectives: To assess flow-recovery time, indicative of ischemia, among the diagnostic endotypes that follow ACh provocation testing. Methods: Patients with angina and non-obstructive coronary artery disease on angiography who underwent ACh provocation testing were included in this analysis. Doppler flow was continuously measured during the procedure and used to determine the flow-recovery time, which was calculated as time between cessation of ACh infusion and the point of flow recovery. Results: Conventional provocation testing according to the COVADIS criteria diagnosed vasospasm in 63%(77/123), an equivocal result in 22%(27/123) and a negative result in 15%(19/123) of patients. In reaction to the highest-dose of ACh, flow-recovery time was significantly extended and similar in the epicardial, microvascular and equivocal test results compared to the negative result (all p < 0.001) indicative of PSRH. Conclusion: Flow-recovery time in patients with an equivocal result is similar to patients with vasospasm, which indicates the occurrence of myocardial ischemia and therefore, these patients may benefit from medical treatment

Clinical quantitative coronary artery stenosis and coronary atherosclerosis imaging: a Consensus Statement from the Quantitative Cardiovascular Imaging Study Group

The detection and characterization of coronary artery stenosis and atherosclerosis using imaging tools are key for clinical decision-making in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. In this regard, imaging-based quantification can be improved by choosing the most appropriate imaging modality for diagnosis, treatment and procedural planning. In this Consensus Statement, we provide clinical consensus recommendations on the optimal use of different imaging techniques in various patient populations and describe the advances in imaging technology. Clinical consensus recommendations on the appropriateness of each imaging technique for direct coronary artery visualization were derived through a three-step, real-time Delphi process that took place before, during and after the Second International Quantitative Cardiovascular Imaging Meeting in September 2022. According to the Delphi survey answers, CT is the method of choice to rule out obstructive stenosis in patients with an intermediate pre-test probability of coronary artery disease and enables quantitative assessment of coronary plaque with respect to dimensions, composition, location and related risk of future cardiovascular events, whereas MRI facilitates the visualization of coronary plaque and can be used in experienced centres as a radiation-free, second-line option for non-invasive coronary angiography. PET has the greatest potential for quantifying inflammation in coronary plaque but SPECT currently has a limited role in clinical coronary artery stenosis and atherosclerosis imaging. Invasive coronary angiography is the reference standard for stenosis assessment but cannot characterize coronary plaques. Finally, intravascular ultrasonography and optical coherence tomography are the most important invasive imaging modalities for the identification of plaques at high risk of rupture. The recommendations made in this Consensus Statement will help clinicians to choose the most appropriate imaging modality on the basis of the specific clinical scenario, individual patient characteristics and the availability of each imaging modality