Angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (caIMR) was an independent predictor of MACEs, improving the area under the curve for risk stratification from 0.587 to 0.642.
Cohort (n=582)
Do coronary slow flow (CSF) and angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (caIMR) predict major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with angina and normal coronary arteries?
In patients with angina and normal coronary arteries, caIMR is an independent prognostic factor for long-term cardiovascular events and improves risk stratification.
p-value: p=0.047
BACKGROUND: This study aims to investigate prognostic implications of coronary slow flow (CSF) and angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (caIMR) in patients with angina and normal coronary arteries. METHODS: A total of 582 patients were enrolled with angiographically normal coronary arteries. caIMR was calculated using a commercial software. Patients were followed up for a median of 45 months. The primary endpoint was defined as major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) comprising death, myocardial infarction and readmission for angina or heart failure. RESULTS: = 0.047) were independent predictors of MACEs. Incorporation of caIMR improved the area under the curve from 0.587 to 0.642. CONCLUSIONS: caIMR was an independent prognostic factor of long-term cardiovascular events in patients with CSF. Evaluation of caIMR improved the risk stratification of patients with angiographically-normal coronary arteries.
Zhou et al. (Tue,) conducted a cohort in angina and normal coronary arteries (n=582). Angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (caIMR) and coronary slow flow (CSF) was evaluated on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) comprising death, myocardial infarction and readmission for angina or heart failure (p=0.047). Angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (caIMR) was an independent predictor of MACEs, improving the area under the curve for risk stratification from 0.587 to 0.642.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: