Why the study?
Coronary microvascular dysfunction frequently causes angina and ischemia in patients with non-obstructive CAD, but the clinical role of emerging continuous thermodilution techniques requires further investigation.
Coronary microvascular dysfunction is prevalent in patients with non-obstructive CAD and is associated with worse prognosis, highlighting the potential utility of invasive assessment techniques like thermodilution.
CMD should be considered in angina without obstructive CAD; leaves open standardized endotype-specific diagnostics and therapies.
More than 60% of patients undergoing coronary angiography present no coronary artery disease (CAD). Angina and myocardial ischemia are classically determined by epicardial vascular obstruction, but coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) may also represent a possible cause for these phenomena. Two endotypes of CMD have been recognized, with two different pathophysiological mechanisms: structural CMD, characterized by low coronary flow reserve (CFR) and high microvascular resistance (MVR) values; and functional CMD, characterized by low CFR and normal MVR values. According to the present data, almost half of patients with non-obstructive CAD have shown signs of CMD. For this reason, further investigations for microvascular function assessment should be considered when evaluating no-CAD patients complaining of angina or presenting signs of myocardial ischemia. The thermodilution method is currently becoming a widespread invasive technique due to its feasibility and high reproducibility for coronary physiology evaluation. Furthermore, a recently introduced technique - called continuous thermodilution - allows for direct measurement of absolute coronary flow and resistances. The role of this brand-new technique in the clinical scenario is however still to be fully investigated and its use is at present limited to research purposes only. Among no-CAD patients, both structural and functional CMD are related to a worse prognosis in term of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). In this review, we will discuss the present evidence supporting the definition, prevalence and clinical implication of the different forms of CMD and the technical aspects of its invasive assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Benedetti et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: