F Groepenhoff1,2, R G M Klaassen1, G B Valstar1, S H Bots1, N C Onland-Moret3, H M Den Ruijter1, T Leiner4, A L M Eikendal5. 1. Laboratory of Experimental Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Laboratory of Experimental Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. a.l.m.eikendal@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is an important underlying cause of angina pectoris. Currently, no diagnostic tool is available to directly visualize the coronary microvasculature. Invasive microvascular reactivity testing is the diagnostic standard for CMD, but several non-invasive imaging techniques are being evaluated. However, evidence on reported non-invasive parameters and cut-off values is limited. Thus, we aimed to provide an overview of reported non-invasive parameters and corresponding cut-off values for CMD. METHODS: Pubmed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for studies enrolling patients with angina pectoris without obstructed coronary arteries, investigating at least one non-invasive imaging technique to quantify CMD. Methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included. Ten cardiac magnetic resonance studies reported MPRI and nine positron emission tomography (PET) and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) studies reported CFR. Mean MPRI ranged from 1.47 ± 0.36 to 2.01 ± 0.41 in patients and from 1.50 ± 0.47 to 2.68 ± 0.49 in controls without CMD. Reported mean CFR in PET and TTE ranged from 1.39 ± 0.31 to 2.85 ± 1.35 and 1.69 ± 0.40 to 2.40 ± 0.40 for patients, and 2.68 ± 0.83 to 4.32 ± 1.78 and 2.65 ± 0.65 to 3.31 ± 1.10 for controls, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review summarized current evidence on reported parameters and cut-off values to diagnose CMD for various non-invasive imaging modalities. In current clinical practice, CMD is generally diagnosed with a CFR less than 2.0. However, due to heterogeneity in methodology and reporting of outcome measures, outcomes could not be compared and no definite reference values could be provided.
BACKGROUND: Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is an important underlying cause of angina pectoris. Currently, no diagnostic tool is available to directly visualize the coronary microvasculature. Invasive microvascular reactivity testing is the diagnostic standard for CMD, but several non-invasive imaging techniques are being evaluated. However, evidence on reported non-invasive parameters and cut-off values is limited. Thus, we aimed to provide an overview of reported non-invasive parameters and corresponding cut-off values for CMD. METHODS: Pubmed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for studies enrolling patients with angina pectoris without obstructed coronary arteries, investigating at least one non-invasive imaging technique to quantify CMD. Methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included. Ten cardiac magnetic resonance studies reported MPRI and nine positron emission tomography (PET) and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) studies reported CFR. Mean MPRI ranged from 1.47 ± 0.36 to 2.01 ± 0.41 in patients and from 1.50 ± 0.47 to 2.68 ± 0.49 in controls without CMD. Reported mean CFR in PET and TTE ranged from 1.39 ± 0.31 to 2.85 ± 1.35 and 1.69 ± 0.40 to 2.40 ± 0.40 for patients, and 2.68 ± 0.83 to 4.32 ± 1.78 and 2.65 ± 0.65 to 3.31 ± 1.10 for controls, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review summarized current evidence on reported parameters and cut-off values to diagnose CMD for various non-invasive imaging modalities. In current clinical practice, CMD is generally diagnosed with a CFR less than 2.0. However, due to heterogeneity in methodology and reporting of outcome measures, outcomes could not be compared and no definite reference values could be provided.
Authors: Jaskanwal D Sara; R Jay Widmer; Yasushi Matsuzawa; Ryan J Lennon; Lilach O Lerman; Amir Lerman Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Mark A Marinescu; Adrián I Löffler; Michelle Ouellette; Lavone Smith; Christopher M Kramer; Jamieson M Bourque Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-02
Authors: Viviany R Taqueti; Leslee J Shaw; Nancy R Cook; Venkatesh L Murthy; Nishant R Shah; Courtney R Foster; Jon Hainer; Ron Blankstein; Sharmila Dorbala; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Venkatesh L Murthy; Masanao Naya; Viviany R Taqueti; Courtney R Foster; Mariya Gaber; Jon Hainer; Sharmila Dorbala; Ron Blankstein; Ornella Rimoldi; Paolo G Camici; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Manesh R Patel; Eric D Peterson; David Dai; J Matthew Brennan; Rita F Redberg; H Vernon Anderson; Ralph G Brindis; Pamela S Douglas Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Louise E J Thomson; Janet Wei; Megha Agarwal; Afsaneh Haft-Baradaran; Chrisandra Shufelt; Puja K Mehta; Edward B Gill; B Delia Johnson; Tanya Kenkre; Eileen M Handberg; Debiao Li; Behzad Sharif; Daniel S Berman; John W Petersen; Carl J Pepine; C Noel Bairey Merz Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Barry Sharaf; Todd Wood; Leslee Shaw; B Delia Johnson; Sheryl Kelsey; R David Anderson; Carl J Pepine; C Noel Bairey Merz Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Annagrazia Cecere; Peter L M Kerkhof; Giovanni Civieri; Annalisa Angelini; Antonio Gambino; Angela Fraiese; Tomaso Bottio; Elena Osto; Giulia Famoso; Marny Fedrigo; Enrico Giacomin; Giuseppe Toscano; Roberta Montisci; Sabino Iliceto; Gino Gerosa; Francesco Tona Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-06-24