Key result
Biomarkers for coronary microvascular dysfunction lack extensive validation for non-invasive diagnosis and risk stratification.
Why the study?
CMD diagnosis is often missed because established measurement techniques are invasive and expensive, and available biomarkers have not been extensively validated.
The review emphasizes that while numerous biomarkers for coronary microvascular dysfunction exist, they lack extensive validation for clinical use.
CMD lacks validated biomarkers for non-invasive assessment; leaves open the need for prospective validation studies.
Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is related to a broad variety of clinical scenarios in which cardiac microvasculature is morphologically and functionally affected, and it is associated with impaired responses to vasoactive stimuli. Although the prevalence of CMD involves about half of all patients with chronic coronary syndromes and more than 20% of those with acute coronary syndrome, the diagnosis of CMD is often missed, leading to the underestimation of its clinical importance. The established and validated techniques for the measurement of coronary microvascular function are invasive and expensive. An ideal method to assess endothelial dysfunction should be accurate, non-invasive, cost-effective and accessible. There are varieties of biomarkers available, potentially involved in microvascular disease, but none have been extensively validated in this heterogeneous clinical population. The investigation of potential biomarkers linked to microvascular dysfunction might improve the assessment of the diagnosis, risk stratification, disease progression and therapy response. This review article offers an update about traditional and novel potential biomarkers linked to CMD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rocco et al. (2022) conducted a review in Coronary microvascular dysfunction. Biomarkers was evaluated. This review highlights that while coronary microvascular dysfunction is prevalent, no biomarkers have been extensively validated for its non-invasive diagnosis, risk stratification, or therapy response.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: