Why the study?
The role of PCI in stable CAD remains debatable, and varying definitions of inducible myocardial ischemia across studies make comparisons difficult with no agreed reference standard.
Standardizing the definition of inducible myocardial ischemia, potentially using ECG changes and regional wall motion abnormalities, is needed to optimize functional angioplasty strategies in stable CAD.
Variable ischemia definitions limit reliable functional PCI guidance in stable CAD; leaves open standardization via ECG and wall motion criteria.
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is used to treat obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). The role of PCI is well defined in acute coronary syndrome, but that for stable CAD remains debatable. Although PCI generally relieves angina in patients with stable CAD, it may not change its prognosis. The extent and severity of CAD are major determinants of prognosis, and complete revascularization (CR) of all ischemia-causing lesions might improve outcomes. Several studies have shown better outcomes with CR than with incomplete revascularization, emphasizing the importance of functional angioplasty. However, different definitions of inducible myocardial ischemia have been used across studies, making their comparison difficult. Various diagnostic tools have been used to estimate the presence, extent, and severity of inducible myocardial ischemia. However, to date, there are no agreed reference standards of inducible myocardial ischemia. The hallmarks of inducible myocardial ischemia such as electrocardiographic changes and regional wall motion abnormalities may be more clinically relevant as the reference standard to define ischemia-causing lesions. In this review, we summarize studies regarding myocardial ischemia, PCI guidance, and possible explanations for similar findings across studies. Also, we provide some insights into the ideal definition of inducible myocardial ischemia and highlight the appropriate PCI strategy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: