International journal of cardiology · 2024
Assessment of coronary endothelial dysfunction using contemporary coronary function testing.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
de Jong Elize A M, Namba Hanae F, Boerhout Coen K M, Feenstra Rutger G T, Woudstra Janneke, Vink Caitlin E M, Appelman Yolande, Beijk Marcel A M, Piek Jan J, van de Hoef Tim P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The established diagnosis of coronary endothelial dysfunction (CED) is through the response to low-dose acetylcholine during invasive coronary function testing (CFT). Current diagnostic criteria encompass deficient epicardial vasodilation and/or insufficient increase in coronary blood flow (CBF) calculated from additional Doppler flow velocity measurements. The aim is to evaluate the diagnostic yield of using angiographic epicardial vasomotion and CBF as single criteria for diagnosing CED during CFT.
METHODS: A total of 110 patients with angina and non-obstructive coronary arteries who underwent clinically indicated CFT were included. CED was defined as any reduction in epicardial diameter through quantitative coronary angiography and/or < 50 % increase in CBF compared to baseline after low-dose acetylcholine.
RESULTS: Based on current diagnostic criteria, 78 % of patients (N = 86/110) was diagnosed with CED. When only considering epicardial diameter, 24 % CED (N = 21/86) and 50 % severe CED diagnoses (N = 19/38) were missed. When only considering CBF, 27 % CED (N = 23/86) and 18 % severe CED diagnoses (N = 7/38) were missed. A similar diagnostic yield for CED detection was found for both parameters (OR: 0.913, 95 %CI 0.481-1.726, p = 0.763). The incidence of CFT diagnoses was comparable among all groups.
CONCLUSIONS: As single parameters, both epicardial diameter and CBF were ineffective in accurately diagnosing CED compared to the current diagnostic criteria. Combining both parameters is necessary to diagnose the complete spectrum of CED, as missed diagnoses of deficient CBF responses (e.g., microvascular CED) and epicardial vasomotion (e.g., epicardial CED) might occur when relying on these parameters as single diagnostic criteria for CED.
METHODS: A total of 110 patients with angina and non-obstructive coronary arteries who underwent clinically indicated CFT were included. CED was defined as any reduction in epicardial diameter through quantitative coronary angiography and/or < 50 % increase in CBF compared to baseline after low-dose acetylcholine.
RESULTS: Based on current diagnostic criteria, 78 % of patients (N = 86/110) was diagnosed with CED. When only considering epicardial diameter, 24 % CED (N = 21/86) and 50 % severe CED diagnoses (N = 19/38) were missed. When only considering CBF, 27 % CED (N = 23/86) and 18 % severe CED diagnoses (N = 7/38) were missed. A similar diagnostic yield for CED detection was found for both parameters (OR: 0.913, 95 %CI 0.481-1.726, p = 0.763). The incidence of CFT diagnoses was comparable among all groups.
CONCLUSIONS: As single parameters, both epicardial diameter and CBF were ineffective in accurately diagnosing CED compared to the current diagnostic criteria. Combining both parameters is necessary to diagnose the complete spectrum of CED, as missed diagnoses of deficient CBF responses (e.g., microvascular CED) and epicardial vasomotion (e.g., epicardial CED) might occur when relying on these parameters as single diagnostic criteria for CED.