Key result
Adenosine CFR threshold of 2.6 identifies ischemia and exercise abnormalities in nonobstructive CAD.
Why the study?
The optimal diagnostic threshold for coronary flow reserve using adenosine is unclear, and the incremental value of testing endothelial function had not been assessed.
Does sequential vasodilator testing with adenosine and acetylcholine accurately diagnose microvascular angina and identify ischemia in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease?
Cross-Sectional (n=90)
Single-blind
No
Does sequential vasodilator testing with adenosine and acetylcholine accurately diagnose microvascular angina and identify ischemia in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.80
p-value: p=<0.001
A stepwise diagnostic algorithm using a CFR threshold of 2.6 and an AchFR threshold of 1.5 accurately identifies ischemic causes in patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease.
May refine microvascular ischemia diagnosis in nonobstructive CAD; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Among patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease, those with coronary microvascular dysfunction have a poor outcome. Coronary microvascular dysfunction is usually diagnosed by assessing flow reserve with an endothelium-independent vasodilator like adenosine, but the optimal diagnostic threshold is unclear. Furthermore, the incremental value of testing endothelial function has never been assessed before. We sought to determine what pharmacological thresholds correspond to exercise pathophysiology and myocardial ischemia in patients with coronary microvascular dysfunction. METHODS: Patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease underwent simultaneous acquisition of coronary pressure and flow during rest, supine bicycle exercise, and pharmacological vasodilatation with adenosine and acetylcholine. Adenosine and acetylcholine coronary flow reserve were calculated as vasodilator/resting coronary blood flow (CFR and AchFR, respectively). Coronary wave intensity analysis was used to quantify the proportion of accelerating wave energy; a normal exercise response was defined as an increase in accelerating wave energy from rest to peak exercise. Ischemia was assessed by quantitative 3-Tesla stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and dichotomously defined by a hyperemic endo-epicardial gradient <1.0. RESULTS: Ninety patients were enrolled (58±10 years, 77% female). Area under the curve using receiver-operating characteristic analysis demonstrated optimal CFR and AchFR thresholds for identifying exercise pathophysiology and ischemia as 2.6 and 1.5, with positive and negative predictive values of 91% and 86%, respectively. Fifty-eight percent had an abnormal CFR (of which 96% also had an abnormal AchFR). Of those with a normal CFR, 53% had an abnormal AchFR, and 47% had a normal AchFR; ischemia rates were 83%, 63%, and 14%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal CFR and AchFR diagnostic thresholds are 2.6 and 1.5, with high-positive and negative predictive values, respectively. A normal CFR value should prompt the measurement of AchFR. A stepwise algorithm incorporating both vasodilators can accurately identify an ischemic cause in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rahman et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease (n=90). Adenosine and acetylcholine coronary flow reserve assessment vs. Reference standard (stress perfusion CMR) was evaluated on Optimal CFR threshold for predicting subendocardial hypoperfusion (ischemia) (AUC 0.80, p=<0.001). The optimal diagnostic thresholds for identifying exercise pathophysiology and ischemia in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease were 2.6 for adenosine coronary flow reserve and 1.5 for acetylcholine flow reserve.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: