Key result
Invasive CFT proves safe with rare complications and detects abnormal CFR/IMR in ~46% of emergencies.
Why the study?
Real-world use and safety of invasive coronary function testing, especially in emergency settings, remain poorly defined.
What is the diagnostic yield and safety of invasive coronary function testing in real-world elective and emergency settings?
What is the diagnostic yield and safety of invasive coronary function testing in real-world elective and emergency settings?
Invasive coronary function testing, including provocation tests and microvascular assessments, is safe and feasible in both elective and emergency settings for evaluating INOCA/MINOCA.
Affirms safety of invasive coronary function testing in real-world settings; leaves open whether routine use improves INOCA outcomes.
Background: Coronary vasomotor dysfunction—including vasospastic angina and coronary microvascular dysfunction—is a key mechanism underlying ischemia or myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries (INOCA/MINOCA). While invasive coronary function testing (CFT) provides important diagnostic insights, its real-world use and safety—especially in emergency settings—remain poorly defined. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the current practice, diagnostic yield, and safety of CFT, including acetylcholine (ACh) and ergonovine (ERG) provocation tests and coronary microvascular assessments using coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), in Japan. Methods: We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional survey of 235 institutions affiliated with the Japanese Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics Society. Data on procedure volume, positivity rates, and complications were collected for tests performed between January 2022 and December 2023. Results: Among 6,983 provocation tests, 4,700 were ACh (4,327 elective and 373 emergency) and 2,283 were ERG (2,009 elective and 274 emergency). CFR/IMR was measured in 2,192 cases. Positivity rates were 50.9% for ACh and 32.5% for ERG. Major complications occurred in 1.4% of ACh and 0.4% of ERG tests, with no significant difference between emergency and elective settings. Abnormal CFR/IMR findings were more common in emergency cases (45.9% vs 34.8%; P < 0.001), while complications remained rare (0.05%). Conclusions: This large-scale survey confirms the feasibility and safety of invasive CFT, even in emergency settings. These findings support its broader adoption in the diagnostic workup of INOCA and MINOCA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nishi et al. (2025) studied this question. Invasive coronary function testing was safe, with complications in 1.4% of ACh tests and 0.4% of ERG tests, while abnormal CFR/IMR findings were more common in emergencies (45.9%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: