BACKGROUND: Coronary vasomotor dysfunction represents an important mechanism responsible for myocardial ischaemia in patients with non-obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). The use of invasive provocative tests allows identifying patients with epicardial or microvascular spasm. Of note, clinical characteristics associated with the occurrence of epicardial or microvascular spasm have still not completely clarified. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients undergoing coronary angiography for suspected myocardial ischaemia/necrosis with evidence of non-obstructive CAD and undergoing intracoronary provocative test for suspected vasomotor dysfunction. Patients with a positive provocative test were enrolled. Clinical, echocardiographic and angiographic characteristics of patients were evaluated according to the pattern of vasomotor dysfunction (epicardial vs. microvascular spasm). We included 120 patients [68 patients with stable angina and 52 patients with myocardial infarction and non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA)]. In particular, 77 (64.2%) patients had a provocative test positive for epicardial spasm and 43 (35.8%) patients for microvascular spasm. Patients with epicardial spasm were more frequently males, smokers, had higher rates of diffuse coronary atherosclerosis at angiography and more frequently presented with MINOCA. On the other hand, patients with microvascular spasm presented more frequently diastolic dysfunction. At multivariate logistic regression analysis male sex, smoking, and diffuse coronary atherosclerosis were independent predictors for the occurrence of epicardial spasm. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that specific clinical features are associated with different responses to intracoronary provocative test. Epicardial spasm is more frequent in males and in MINOCA patients, whereas microvascular spasm is more frequent in patients with stable angina and is associated with diastolic dysfunction.
BACKGROUND:Coronary vasomotor dysfunction represents an important mechanism responsible for myocardial ischaemia in patients with non-obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). The use of invasive provocative tests allows identifying patients with epicardial or microvascular spasm. Of note, clinical characteristics associated with the occurrence of epicardial or microvascular spasm have still not completely clarified. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients undergoing coronary angiography for suspected myocardial ischaemia/necrosis with evidence of non-obstructive CAD and undergoing intracoronary provocative test for suspected vasomotor dysfunction. Patients with a positive provocative test were enrolled. Clinical, echocardiographic and angiographic characteristics of patients were evaluated according to the pattern of vasomotor dysfunction (epicardial vs. microvascular spasm). We included 120 patients [68 patients with stable angina and 52 patients with myocardial infarction and non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA)]. In particular, 77 (64.2%) patients had a provocative test positive for epicardial spasm and 43 (35.8%) patients for microvascular spasm. Patients with epicardial spasm were more frequently males, smokers, had higher rates of diffuse coronary atherosclerosis at angiography and more frequently presented with MINOCA. On the other hand, patients with microvascular spasm presented more frequently diastolic dysfunction. At multivariate logistic regression analysis male sex, smoking, and diffuse coronary atherosclerosis were independent predictors for the occurrence of epicardial spasm. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that specific clinical features are associated with different responses to intracoronary provocative test. Epicardial spasm is more frequent in males and in MINOCA patients, whereas microvascular spasm is more frequent in patients with stable angina and is associated with diastolic dysfunction.
Entities:
Keywords:
Epicardial spasm; MINOCA; Microvascular spasm; Provocative test
Authors: Sherif F Nagueh; Otto A Smiseth; Christopher P Appleton; Benjamin F Byrd; Hisham Dokainish; Thor Edvardsen; Frank A Flachskampf; Thierry C Gillebert; Allan L Klein; Patrizio Lancellotti; Paolo Marino; Jae K Oh; Bogdan Alexandru Popescu; Alan D Waggoner Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Viviany R Taqueti; Scott D Solomon; Amil M Shah; Akshay S Desai; John D Groarke; Michael T Osborne; Jon Hainer; Courtney F Bibbo; Sharmila Dorbala; Ron Blankstein; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Peter Ong; Paolo G Camici; John F Beltrame; Filippo Crea; Hiroaki Shimokawa; Udo Sechtem; Juan Carlos Kaski; C Noel Bairey Merz Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Antonio Luis Arrebola-Moreno; Juan Pedro Arrebola; Antonio Moral-Ruiz; Jose Antonio Ramirez-Hernandez; Rafael Melgares-Moreno; Juan Carlos Kaski Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: K H Humphries; M Izadnegahdar; T Sedlak; J Saw; N Johnston; K Schenck-Gustafsson; R U Shah; V Regitz-Zagrosek; J Grewal; V Vaccarino; J Wei; C N Bairey Merz Journal: Front Neuroendocrinol Date: 2017-04-18 Impact factor: 8.333
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
Authors: Kate Liang; Eleni Nakou; Marco Giuseppe Del Buono; Rocco Antonio Montone; Domenico D'Amario; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-01-17