Philip Brainin1, Daria Frestad2, Eva Prescott3. 1. Department of Cardiology, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Department of Cardiology, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Cardiology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Cardiology, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: epre0004@regionh.dk.
Abstract
AIMS: Coronary vascular dysfunction is linked with poor cardiovascular prognosis in patients without obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) but a critical appraisal of the literature is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the cardiovascular risk associated with endothelial dependent and non-endothelial dependent coronary vascular dysfunction in patients with normal or non-obstructive CAD (epicardial stenosis <50%). Prospective cohort studies that reported coronary vascular dysfunction at baseline and cardiovascular outcomes at follow-up were included. We identified 52 papers of which 26 were included in the meta-analyses. Study populations included stable angina (n=15), heart failure (n=4), diabetes (n=2), hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (n=2), chronic kidney disease, aortic stenosis and left atrial enlargement (each n=1): RR estimates were similar in patients with stable angina and other patient groups. For epicardial endothelial dependent dysfunction (six studies, 243 events in 1192 patients) the summarized RR was 2.38 (95% confidence intervals (95% CI) 1.74-3.25), for non-endothelial dependent dysfunction assessed as coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) by echocardiography (10 studies, 428 events in 5134 patients) RR was 4.58 (95% CI 3.58-5.87) and for coronary flow reserve (CFR) by PET (10 studies, 538 events in 3687 patients) RR was 2.44 (95% CI 1.80-3.30). However, RR estimates were robust in a series of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The presence of coronary vascular dysfunction in patients with normal or non-obstructive CAD predicts adverse cardiovascular outcome. Multicentre studies and uniform guidelines for assessing coronary vascular dysfunction are encouraged.
AIMS: Coronary vascular dysfunction is linked with poor cardiovascular prognosis in patients without obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) but a critical appraisal of the literature is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the cardiovascular risk associated with endothelial dependent and non-endothelial dependent coronary vascular dysfunction in patients with normal or non-obstructive CAD (epicardial stenosis <50%). Prospective cohort studies that reported coronary vascular dysfunction at baseline and cardiovascular outcomes at follow-up were included. We identified 52 papers of which 26 were included in the meta-analyses. Study populations included stable angina (n=15), heart failure (n=4), diabetes (n=2), hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (n=2), chronic kidney disease, aortic stenosis and left atrial enlargement (each n=1): RR estimates were similar in patients with stable angina and other patient groups. For epicardial endothelial dependent dysfunction (six studies, 243 events in 1192 patients) the summarized RR was 2.38 (95% confidence intervals (95% CI) 1.74-3.25), for non-endothelial dependent dysfunction assessed as coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) by echocardiography (10 studies, 428 events in 5134 patients) RR was 4.58 (95% CI 3.58-5.87) and for coronary flow reserve (CFR) by PET (10 studies, 538 events in 3687 patients) RR was 2.44 (95% CI 1.80-3.30). However, RR estimates were robust in a series of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The presence of coronary vascular dysfunction in patients with normal or non-obstructive CAD predicts adverse cardiovascular outcome. Multicentre studies and uniform guidelines for assessing coronary vascular dysfunction are encouraged.
Authors: Vijay Kunadian; Alaide Chieffo; Paolo G Camici; Colin Berry; Javier Escaned; Angela H E M Maas; Eva Prescott; Nicole Karam; Yolande Appelman; Chiara Fraccaro; Gill Louise Buchanan; Stephane Manzo-Silberman; Rasha Al-Lamee; Evelyn Regar; Alexandra Lansky; J Dawn Abbott; Lina Badimon; Dirk J Duncker; Roxana Mehran; Davide Capodanno; Andreas Baumbach Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Daria Frestad Bechsgaard; Ida Gustafsson; Marie Mide Michelsen; Naja Dam Mygind; Kristoffer Flintholm Raft; Jesper James Linde; Klaus Fuglsang Kofoed; Fay Yu-Huei Lin; James K Min; Eva Prescott; Jens Dahlgaard Hove Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Seung Hun Lee; Doosup Shin; Joo Myung Lee; Tim P van de Hoef; David Hong; Ki Hong Choi; Doyeon Hwang; Coen K M Boerhout; Guus A de Waard; Ji-Hyun Jung; Hernan Mejia-Renteria; Masahiro Hoshino; Mauro Echavarria-Pinto; Martijn Meuwissen; Hitoshi Matsuo; Maribel Madera-Cambero; Ashkan Eftekhari; Mohamed A Effat; Tadashi Murai; Koen Marques; Joon-Hyung Doh; Evald H Christiansen; Rupak Banerjee; Hyun Kuk Kim; Chang-Wook Nam; Giampaolo Niccoli; Masafumi Nakayama; Nobuhiro Tanaka; Eun-Seok Shin; Steven A J Chamuleau; Niels van Royen; Paul Knaapen; Bon Kwon Koo; Tsunekazu Kakuta; Javier Escaned; Jan J Piek Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 6.106