Key result
Review summarizes invasive coronary microcirculation assessment methods, pros, cons, and clinical uses.
Why the study?
Despite guideline recommendations and clinical benefits, uptake of coronary microcirculation assessment remains low in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory, largely due to lack of familiarity with available tools.
This review summarizes invasive techniques for assessing coronary microcirculation in the catheterization laboratory to address low clinical uptake despite guideline recommendations.
May aid cath-lab selection of microcirculation methods; supports consensus guidelines but leaves optimal adoption open.
The coronary microcirculation is a key determinant of blood supply to the myocardium and outweighs the epicardial arteries in its abundance and distribution. Recent studies have shown the clinical benefit of assessing the microcirculation, and this practice has now been given a recommendation within the latest international guidelines and consensus statements. However, the uptake of assessing the microcirculation remains low. We continue to focus our efforts in diagnosing and managing epicardial coronary disease in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory and mostly ignore the microvasculature. This is in large part due to the lack of familiarity with available tools to perform these assessments. This review aims to summarise the various techniques available to invasively assess the coronary microcirculation in the catheterisation laboratory. The advantages, disadvantages, pitfalls and clinical implications of each method are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ada et al. (2021) conducted a review in Coronary microvascular disease. Invasive assessment of the coronary microcirculation was evaluated. Invasive assessment of the coronary microcirculation in the catheterization laboratory is summarized in this review, detailing the advantages, disadvantages, and clinical implications of each method.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: