PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 11, 2025American Heart Journal2 citationsOpen Access

Functional Coronary Angiogram Findings in ANOCA Patients with Coronary Slow Flow

View Full Paper
OGO. GirolamoMIMuhammad Dzafir IsmaliRTRosanna Tavella

Key Points

  • Coronary microvascular dysfunction was found in 43% of patients with coronary slow flow phenomenon, indicating significant impairment.
  • Patients with coronary slow flow had lower resting blood flow velocity and higher resting microvascular resistance compared to those without.
  • Functional coronary angiography using pressure-Doppler flow wire provided valuable insights into coronary microvascular resistance in angina patients.
  • The corrected thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count correlated with coronary microvascular resistance, suggesting its utility in diagnostics.

Abstract

The Coronary Slow Flow Phenomenon (CSFP) is considered a coronary microvascular disorder and has been defined as a corrected thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count (cTFC) ≥25 frames. Recent invasive physiology studies have reported that cTFC is not a surrogate marker for coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD), defined by an abnormal Coronary Flow Reserve (CFR), questioning the integrity of CSFP. This study evaluates the Functional Coronary Angiography (FCA) findings of patients with and without CSFP, as well as the relationship between cTFC and invasive coronary functional measures. FCA utilizing a pressure-Doppler flow wire during adenosine infusion, and acetylcholine provocation, was undertaken in 103 patients with angina and non-obstructive coronary artery disease (<50% stenosis; ANOCA). The FCA findings revealed CMD (i.e. CFR<2) in 43%, inducible coronary artery spasm (58%) and microvascular spasm (13%) in patients with the CSFP (n=69), which was similar to those without CSFP (n=34). However, the CSFP patients had a lower resting coronary blood flow velocity (19±7 vs 23±7cm/s, p=0.009) with higher resting microvascular resistance (5.8±1.9 vs 4.4±1.7mmHg/cm/s, p=0.006) and higher hyperemic microvascular resistance (2.35±1.09 vs 1.94 ±0.93, p=0.049), despite a similar hyperemic CFR (2.25±0.84 vs 2.26 ±0.58, p=0.971) compared to those without CSFP. Furthermore, the cTFC as a continuous measure, correlated with resting coronary blood flow, resting/hyperemic resistance but not CFR. The conventional marker of CMD (i.e. CFR <2) was similar in patients with/without the CSFP. However alternative hemodynamic markers of impaired coronary microvascular function were abnormal in patients with the CSFP, including resting/hyperemic coronary microvascular resistance. Moreover, cTFC is a simple semi-quantitative marker correlated with coronary microvascular resistance and thus has clinical utility in the diagnosis of the CSFP.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Girolamo et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68ea72339f1bd4df558cedb1https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2025.107287
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper