Key result
Three-vessel assessment is linked to ~125% higher CMD diagnostic yield vs. LAD-only testing.
Why the study?
Coronary microvascular dysfunction is typically assessed only in the LAD, but inter-vessel differences involving the LCX and RCA remain unclear.
Does a three-vessel physiological assessment improve the detection rate of coronary microvascular dysfunction compared to an LAD-only assessment?
Observational (n=91)
No
Does a three-vessel physiological assessment improve the detection rate of coronary microvascular dysfunction compared to an LAD-only assessment?
Coronary microvascular physiology varies across the major epicardial arteries, and assessing all three vessels significantly increases the diagnostic yield for CMD compared to LAD-only testing.
Three-vessel CMD assessment may raise diagnostic yield; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
Background Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is typically assessed in the left anterior descending artery (LAD); however, inter-vessel differences involving the left circumflex (LCX) and right coronary arteries (RCA) remain unclear. We investigated inter-vessel variations in CMD and their associations with patient characteristics. Methods and results We retrospectively analyzed 91 patients (overall cohort) to evaluate patient characteristics across different coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) phenotypes based on physiological cutoffs: isolated CFR impairment, isolated IMR impairment, and combined impairment. Additionally, in a subgroup of 34 patients who successfully underwent physiological assessments in all three major coronary arteries (three-vessel cohort), we compared the CMD diagnostic rates between LAD-only and three-vessel assessments and evaluated vessel-specific correlations between CFR and IMR. In the Overall cohort, analysis of vessel-specific phenotypes revealed that patients with isolated IMR impairment in the LAD had a significantly higher body mass index (26.4 ± 4.90 kg/m 2 , p = 0.038). In the RCA, patients with isolated CFR impairment were significantly older (77.0 ± 9.18 years, p = 0.044). In the three-vessel cohort, the CMD diagnostic rate was significantly higher with a three-vessel assessment than with an LAD-only assessment (52.9% vs. 23.5%, p = 0.044). Furthermore, a significant inverse correlation between CFR and IMR was observed only in the LCX ( r = −0.326, p = 0.033). Conclusions Coronary microvascular physiology varies across the LAD, LCX, and RCA, indicating that conventional LAD-only assessments may underestimate CMD burden. These preliminary retrospective findings require validation in prospective, multicenter studies before routine clinical adoption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kunieda et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) (n=91). Three-vessel physiological assessment vs. LAD-only assessment was evaluated on CMD diagnostic rate (p=0.044). A three-vessel physiological assessment significantly increased the diagnostic rate of coronary microvascular dysfunction compared to an LAD-only assessment (52.9% vs. 23.5%, p=0.044).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: