Why the study?
Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are more susceptible to microvascular complications, but whether DM is associated with coronary microvascular dysfunction remains unclear.
Does type 2 diabetes mellitus worsen coronary microvascular dysfunction indices in patients with angina and no obstructive coronary artery disease?
Does type 2 diabetes mellitus worsen coronary microvascular dysfunction indices in patients with angina and no obstructive coronary artery disease?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In patients with ANOCA, the presence of type 2 diabetes mellitus was not associated with worse invasive coronary microvascular dysfunction indices compared to nondiabetic patients.
Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) are more susceptible to microvascular complications. However, whether DM is associated with coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is unclear. This observational study used data from the Coronary Microvascular Disease Registry (CMDR) (NCT05960474) and included patients with angina and no obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA) who underwent invasive CMD evaluation using the CoroVentis CoroFlow System (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA). Patient demographics, comorbidities, laboratory data, echocardiography, coronary angiography, and microvascular physiology results were analyzed. Among the 271 patients, 73 (26.9%) had DM. These patients were more likely to be African American (68.1% vs. 47.0%) and had higher rates of hypertension (93.2% vs. 74.2%), hyperlipidemia (89.0% vs. 68.7%), and chronic kidney disease (17.8% vs. 8.1%) than those without DM. Invasive coronary functional testing showed no significant differences in the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) (17.82 ± 8.17 vs. 19.37 ± 13.14, p = 0.268) or coronary flow reserve (CFR) (3.24 ± 1.73 vs. 3.21 ± 1.86, p = 0.909) between diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Similarly, in those testing positive for CMD, there were no significant differences in IMR (27.8 ± 7.4 vs. 32.35 ± 15.22, p = 0.108) or CFR (2.42 ± 1.09 vs. 2.05 ± 0.94, p = 0.199). Although patients with DM exhibited more comorbidities, CMD physiology indices were comparable between the groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chitturi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: