Key result
A systematic review of 80 studies found no specific pharmacological or nonpharmacological treatment for coronary microvascular dysfunction was sufficiently documented to be recommended.
Why the study?
Do pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions improve coronary perfusion in patients with coronary microvascular dysfunction?
Systematic Review (n=80)
Do pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions improve coronary perfusion in patients with coronary microvascular dysfunction?
Current evidence is insufficient to recommend any specific pharmacological or nonpharmacological treatment for coronary microvascular dysfunction, highlighting the need for larger, well-designed trials.
No specific treatment for coronary microvascular dysfunction is recommended; leaves open identification of effective therapies in future trials.
CMD has been associated with a wide spectrum of diseases and conditions, and it has proven to be a strong prognostic marker of morbidity and mortality. Despite increased attention, guideline-based treatment recommendations are lacking. We performed a systematic review of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions to improve coronary perfusion, assessed by IC Doppler, TTDE, PET, CMRI, transthoracic contrast perfusion echocardiography, and dilution techniques. No restrictions were made regarding the study design (randomized, placebo-controlled/randomized with active comparators/nonrandomized with or without a control group), the cardiac condition studied, or the coronary microvascular function at baseline. An electronic database search yielded 4485 records of which 80 studies met our inclusion criteria. Included studies were sorted according to intervention and study design. Studies were small and heterogeneous in methodology, and only few were placebo-controlled. Although some treatments looked promising, we found that no specific treatment was sufficiently well documented to be recommended in any patient groups. There is a need for larger well-designed clinical trials, and we suggest that future studies stratify study populations according to pathogenic mechanisms, thereby investigating whether an individualized treatment approach would be more successful.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Suhrs et al. (2017) conducted a systematic review in Coronary microvascular dysfunction (n=80). Pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions was evaluated on Coronary perfusion. A systematic review of 80 studies found no specific pharmacological or nonpharmacological treatment for coronary microvascular dysfunction was sufficiently documented to be recommended.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: