Key result
Coronary physiology testing aids chronic coronary syndrome management, balancing diagnostic utility against key physiological assumptions.
Why the study?
Simplified invasive and non-invasive methods to assess ischaemia carry physiological assumptions, and comprehensive evaluation of epicardial and microcirculatory vasculature remains hampered by perceived technical complexity and underappreciation of the microvasculature.
A comprehensive understanding of both invasive and non-invasive physiological tools is essential for accurately identifying ischaemic substrates and guiding revascularization in patients with chronic coronary syndromes.
Physiology testing refines ischaemia assessment in chronic coronary syndromes; extends tool validation while leaving simplification assumptions untested.
Intracoronary physiology testing has emerged as a valuable diagnostic approach in the management of patients with chronic coronary syndrome, circumventing limitations like inferring coronary function from anatomical assessment and low spatial resolution associated with angiography or non-invasive tests. The value of hyperaemic translesional pressure ratios to estimate the functional relevance of coronary stenoses is supported by a wealth of prognostic data. The continuing drive to further simplify this approach led to the development of non-hyperaemic pressure-based indices. Recent attention has focussed on estimating physiology without even measuring coronary pressure. However, the reduction in procedural time and ease of accessibility afforded by these simplifications needs to be counterbalanced against the increasing burden of physiological assumptions, which may impact on the ability to reliably identify an ischaemic substrate, the ultimate goal during catheter laboratory assessment. In that regard, measurement of both coronary pressure and flow enables comprehensive physiological evaluation of both epicardial and microcirculatory components of the vasculature, although widespread adoption has been hampered by perceived technical complexity and, in general, an underappreciation of the role of the microvasculature. In parallel, entirely non-invasive tools have matured, with the utilization of various techniques including computational fluid dynamic and quantitative perfusion analysis. This review article appraises the strengths and limitations for each test in investigating myocardial ischaemia and discusses a comprehensive algorithm that could be used to obtain a diagnosis in all patients with angina scheduled for coronary angiography, including those who are not found to have obstructive epicardial coronary disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Demir et al. (2021) conducted a review in Chronic coronary syndrome. Invasive and non-invasive coronary physiology testing vs. Anatomical assessment alone was evaluated. Invasive and non-invasive coronary physiology testing provides valuable diagnostic and prognostic information for managing chronic coronary syndromes, though simplifications introduce physiological assumptions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: