Marie M Michelsen1, Adam Pena2, Naja D Mygind3, Jan Bech1, Ida Gustafsson4, Jens Kastrup3, Henrik S Hansen5, Nis Høst1, Peter R Hansen2, Eva Prescott1. 1. Department of Cardiology, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Department of Cardiology, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Cardiology, Hvidovre Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is a potential cause of myocardial ischemia and may affect myocardial function at rest and during stress. We investigated whether CMD was associated with left ventricular diastolic and systolic function at rest and during pharmacologically induced hyperemic stress. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, we included 963 women with angina, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >45%, and an invasive coronary angiogram without significant stenosis (<50%). Parameters of left ventricular diastolic function, LVEF, speckle tracking-derived global longitudinal strain (GLS), and coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) were assessed by transthoracic echocardiography at rest and during dipyridamole stress. The GLS and LVEF reserves were defined as the absolute increases in GLS and LVEF during stress. RESULTS: Coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) was measured in 919 women of whom 26% had CMD (defined as CFVR < 2). Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) was associated with higher age and a higher resting heart rate. Women with CMD had a reduced GLS reserve (P = .005), while we found no association between CFVR and LVEF at rest, GLS at rest, or the LVEF reserve, respectively. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) reserve remained associated with CFVR (P = .002) in a multivariable regression analysis adjusted for age, hemodynamic variables, and GLS at rest. In age-adjusted analysis, women with low CFVR had no signs of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction measured by echocardiography at rest. CONCLUSION: The GLS reserve was significantly lower in women with CMD. The mechanisms underlying the association between CMD and GLS reserve warrant further study.
BACKGROUND:Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is a potential cause of myocardial ischemia and may affect myocardial function at rest and during stress. We investigated whether CMD was associated with left ventricular diastolic and systolic function at rest and during pharmacologically induced hyperemic stress. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, we included 963 women with angina, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >45%, and an invasive coronary angiogram without significant stenosis (<50%). Parameters of left ventricular diastolic function, LVEF, speckle tracking-derived global longitudinal strain (GLS), and coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) were assessed by transthoracic echocardiography at rest and during dipyridamole stress. The GLS and LVEF reserves were defined as the absolute increases in GLS and LVEF during stress. RESULTS: Coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) was measured in 919 women of whom 26% had CMD (defined as CFVR < 2). Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) was associated with higher age and a higher resting heart rate. Women with CMD had a reduced GLS reserve (P = .005), while we found no association between CFVR and LVEF at rest, GLS at rest, or the LVEF reserve, respectively. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) reserve remained associated with CFVR (P = .002) in a multivariable regression analysis adjusted for age, hemodynamic variables, and GLS at rest. In age-adjusted analysis, women with low CFVR had no signs of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction measured by echocardiography at rest. CONCLUSION: The GLS reserve was significantly lower in women with CMD. The mechanisms underlying the association between CMD and GLS reserve warrant further study.
Authors: Joseph A Ladapo; John M Pfeifer; James M Pitcavage; Brent A Williams; Alana A Choy-Shan Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Marie Mide Michelsen; Adam Pena; Naja D Mygind; Nis Høst; Ida Gustafsson; Peter Riis Hansen; Henrik Steen Hansen; Jens Kastrup; Eva Prescott Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hugo Rodriguez-Zanella; Rosina Arbucci; Juan Francisco Fritche-Salazar; Xochitl Arely Ortiz-Leon; Domenico Tuttolomondo; Diego Haber Lowenstein; Karina Wierzbowska-Drabik; Quirino Ciampi; Jarosław D Kasprzak; Nicola Gaibazzi; Jorge Lowenstein; Edith Liliana Posada-Martinez; Jose Antonio Arias-Godinez; Juan C de la Fuente-Mancera; Eugenio Picano Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Niya Mileva; Sakura Nagumo; Takuya Mizukami; Jeroen Sonck; Colin Berry; Emanuele Gallinoro; Giovanni Monizzi; Alessandro Candreva; Daniel Munhoz; Dobrin Vassilev; Martin Penicka; Emanuele Barbato; Bernard De Bruyne; Carlos Collet Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 6.106