Key result
ANOCA patients show ~10 percentage points fewer 3-year MACE than obstructive CAD despite similar presentation.
Why the study?
Management pathways for obstructive CAD are well described, but the clinical and diagnostic journey of patients with ANOCA has largely been inferred due to limited quantitative data.
Does the diagnostic journey and long-term prognosis differ between patients presenting with suspected angina who have ANOCA compared to those with obstructive CAD?
Cohort (n=6,372)
Yes
Does the diagnostic journey and long-term prognosis differ between patients presenting with suspected angina who have ANOCA compared to those with obstructive CAD?
Absolute Event Rate: 14% vs 24%
p-value: p=<0.001
Patients with ANOCA present with clinical features and objective ischemia rates indistinguishable from obstructive CAD, yet experience a profound diagnostic and treatment gap resulting in persistent angina and a 14% 3-year MACE rate.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography for the investigation of angina, the management pathways for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) are well described, whereas the clinical and diagnostic journey of patients with Angina with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries (ANOCA) has largely been inferred, as there is limited quantitative data. To compare the journey of patients with ANOCA vs. obstructive CAD, particularly in relation to (i) clinical presentation, and (ii) diagnostic assessment, (iii) 12 month patient-reported outcome measures, and (iv) 3-year composite major adverse cardiovascular events. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 2285 ANOCA and 4087 obstructive CAD consecutive patients were included from the CADOSA (Coronary Angiogram Database of South Australia) registry between 2012 and 2018. At presentation for elective invasive angiography, the chest pain features and non-invasive ischaemic markers were indistinguishable between patients with obstructive CAD and ANOCA, although the latter were younger (67 ± 11 vs. 61 ± 11 years, P < 0.001), more likely to be female (27 vs. 58%, P < 0.001) and have fewer traditional cardiac risk factors. However, following angiography (compared to those with obstructive CAD), patients with ANOCA were less likely to attain a cardiac discharge diagnosis (100 vs. 22%) or receive anti-anginal therapy (76 vs. 57%), despite the same prevalence of persistent angina (weekly angina: 10 vs. 11% over 12 months). CONCLUSION: Although the pre-angiography journey (symptoms and non-invasive ischaemic investigations) of patients with obstructive CAD and ANOCA is indistinguishable, the post-angiography journey is portrayed by a vast diagnostic and treatment gap in those with ANOCA, which needs to be addressed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
La et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Chronic coronary syndromes with stable chest pain (n=6,372). Angina with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries (ANOCA) vs. Obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) was evaluated on 3-year composite major adverse cardiovascular events (all-cause mortality, hospital admission for unstable angina, myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) (p=<0.001). Patients with ANOCA presented with symptoms indistinguishable from obstructive CAD but received significantly fewer cardiac diagnoses at discharge (22% vs 100%) and had lower 3-year MACE rates (14% vs 24%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: