Why the study?
Definite alterations in left ventricular function in patients with coronary slow flow remain inconsistent.
Are left ventricular systolic and diastolic functions impaired in patients with coronary slow flow?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,988)
Are left ventricular systolic and diastolic functions impaired in patients with coronary slow flow?
Standardized Mean Difference: -0.236 (95% CI -0.33–-0.14)
Coronary slow flow is associated with impaired left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, which correlates with the severity of delayed perfusion (TFC).
BACKGROUND: Coronary slow flow (CSF) is an angiographic finding defined as delayed distal vessel perfusion without severe stenosis of the epicardial coronary arteries. However, definite alterations in left ventricular (LV) function in patients with CSF remains inconsistent. This study aimed to clarify the changes in LV function in patients with CSF and explore the factors that may influence LV function. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched. Standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the LV function parameters were calculated. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression analysis, and correlation analysis were performed to explore the factors influencing LV function. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (1101 patients with CSF) were included after searching three databases. In patients with CSF, LV ejection function in patients with CSF was marginally lower (61.8%; 95% CI: 61.0%, 62.7%), global longitudinal strain was decreased (-18.2%; 95% CI: -16.7%, -19.7%). Furthermore, left atrial diameter, left atrial volume index, and E/e' were significantly increased, while E/A and e' were significantly decreased. The mean thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count (TFC) was linearly associated with LV function; the larger the mean TFC, the greater the impairment of LV function. CONCLUSIONS: Left ventricular systolic and diastolic functions were impaired in patients with CSF, and this impairment was aggravated with increasing mean TFC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dong et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary slow flow (n=1,988). Coronary slow flow vs. Normal coronary flow was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (SMD -0.236, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.14).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: