Key result
In patients with myocardial bridging, intracoronary adenosine significantly reduced fractional flow reserve from 0.96 to 0.88 (p=0.011), although no patients reached the threshold for hemodynamic significance (≤0.80).
Why the study?
Patients with angina and non-invasive ischemia often have myocardial bridging as the sole angiographic finding, and studies suggest decreased coronary flow reserve in this setting.
Does myocardial bridging cause physiologically significant ischemia as assessed by FFR in patients with angina and no significant CAD?
Observational (n=8)
No
Does myocardial bridging cause physiologically significant ischemia as assessed by FFR in patients with angina and no significant CAD?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.88% vs 0.96%
p-value: p=0.011
In a small cohort of patients with angina and myocardial bridging, FFR decreased significantly with nitroglycerin and adenosine but did not reach the threshold for hemodynamic significance.
Myocardial bridging may not yield FFR-defined ischemia; hypothesis-generating for alternative assessments in symptomatic patients without obstructive CAD.
Background Myocardial bridge (MB) is a portion of an epicardial coronary artery that takes an intramuscular course. The systolic compression of MB often gets carried over to early and mid-diastole, compromising coronary blood flow. In clinical practice, we encounter patients with angina, non-invasive evidence of ischemia, and a MB as the only relevant finding on angiography. In view of studies in support of decreased coronary flow reserve in MB, we assessed the physiological significance of MB by fractional flow reserve (FFR). Methods and Results We enrolled eight patients with chronic stable angina and positive noninvasive stress test, who had no significant CAD, and with evidence of MB in the left anterior descending artery. Mean age of population was 57.14 ± 6.25 years. Two (25%) were females and six (75%) were males. Four (50%) were smokers, five (62.5%) were diabetics, and two (25%) were hypertensives. Mean length of MB is 19.4 ± 5.04 mm. All underwent physiological assessment by FFR and the baseline, post nitroglycerin (NTG), and post adenosine readings were noted. Mean pre-NTG value, post-NTG, and post-adenosine were 0.974 ± 0.022, 0.96 ± 0.03, and 0.88 ± 0.042 (≤0.80 hemodynamically significant) respectively. Paired t -test showed significant reduction in FFR after NTG ( p = 0.0452) and post-adenosine ( p = 0.011) but all eight patients did not get significant FFR. Conclusion MB was found to be physiologically insignificant in our group of patients. But a statistical significant reduction of FFR in MB, post NTG and post adenosine, does impress on the fact that, an extensive study over a longer period of course, could throw light on this unsettled area of physiological significance and optimal therapeutic approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Panda et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Myocardial bridging with chronic stable angina (n=8). Intracoronary Adenosine vs. Baseline (Pre-adenosine) was evaluated on Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) (p=0.011). In patients with myocardial bridging, intracoronary adenosine significantly reduced fractional flow reserve from 0.96 to 0.88 (p=0.011), although no patients reached the threshold for hemodynamic significance (≤0.80).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: