| Literature DB >> 34950242 |
Haider Aldiwani1,2, Suzan Mahdai2, Ghaith Alhatemi3, C Noel Bairey Merz1.
Abstract
Recognition of suspected ischaemia with no obstructive coronary artery disease - termed INOCA - has increased over the past decades, with a key contributor being microvascular angina. Patients with microvascular angina are at higher risk for major adverse cardiac events including MI, stroke, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and death but to date there are no clear evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Recently, the Coronary Vasomotion Disorders International Study Group proposed standardised criteria for diagnosis of microvascular angina using invasive and non-invasive approaches. The management strategy for remains empirical, largely due to the lack of high-levelevidence- based guidelines and clinical trials. In this review, the authors will illustrate the updated approach to diagnosis of microvascular angina and address evidence-based pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for patients with the condition.Entities:
Keywords: Microvascular angina; coronary function test; coronary microvascular dysfunction; diagnosis; management
Year: 2021 PMID: 34950242 PMCID: PMC8674627 DOI: 10.15420/ecr.2021.15
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Cardiol ISSN: 1758-3756
Invasive and Non-invasive Testing Approaches to Diagnose Microvascular Angina
| Advantages | Disadvantages | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Transthoracic Doppler, contrast echocardiography |
Easy to perform Minimal risk No radiation Relatively inexpensive |
Operator-dependent Difficult imaging and poor image quality Limited validation and poor correlation with PET |
| Cardiac PET |
The most validated non-invasive tool to diagnose CMD Carries a prognostication value Accurate perfusion quantification Less likely to be affected by renal function Adding CT can allow anatomic assessment of the coronary arteries Not haematocrit-dependent Standard post-processing |
Radiation exposure Expensive Not widely available Less spatial and temporal resolution compared to CT and CMR |
| CMR |
Validated against invasive measurements and cardiac PET Myocardial perfusion semi-quantification No radiation exposure Excellent spatial and temporal resolution Allows tissue characterisation with the same study |
Expensive Limited prognostication data Complex post processing Not widely available Requires frequent breath holds and longer exam duration Haematocrit-dependent Limited in patients with MRI non-compatible devices Limited in renal failure |
| Cardiac CT |
Anatomic coronary data and perfusion data can be obtained in the same study Good spatial and temporal resolution compared to cardiac PET |
High radiation exposure Higher risk for contrast-induced nephropathy Limited in renal failure Post-processing is complex Haematocrit-dependent Limited validation in patients with MVA Iodinated contrast can cause coronary vasodilation and overestimate myocardial perfusion |
|
| ||
| Coronary function test |
Confirmatory test to diagnose CMD Accurately identifies different pathways contributing to MVA including CFR, CBF and coronary artery diameter change Provides assessment of other haemodynamic measures such as LVEDP and assesses degree of coronary artery stenosis Carries a prognostication value Standardised protocol |
Radiation exposure Not widely available Risk of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with renal failure Requires complex preparation and hospitalisation |
CBF = coronary blood flow; CFR = coronary flow reserve; CMD = coronary microvascular dysfunction; CMR = cardiac magnetic resonance; LVEDP = left ventricular end diastolic pressure; MVA = microvascular angina.
Intracoronary Acetylcholine Concentration and Infusion
| Prepared Concentration, mol/l (μg/ml) | Infusion Rate (ml/h) | Infusion Duration (min) | Infused Dose (μg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10−6 (0.182) | 48 | 3 | 0.364 |
| 10−4 (18.2) | 48 | 3 | 36.4 |
| 10−4 (18.2) | 120 | 3 | 108 |
Source: Merz et al. 2017.[