ArticleCirculation. Cardiovascular interventions2020
Optimal Use of Vasodilators for Diagnosis of Microvascular Angina in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory.
Article in Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronary flow reserve and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European heart journal · 2022Pooled it
- Objective Ischemia, Subjective Angina, and Psychological Distress in Angina With No Obstructive Coronary Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Acetylcholine Provocation Testing for Coronary Vasomotor Disorders.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Refractory angina: mechanisms and stratified treatment in obstructive and non-obstructive chronic myocardial ischaemic syndromes.European heart journal · 2025Review
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of the Stress System in Acute and Chronic Cardiac Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Examining the Disproportionate Burden of Microvascular Disease in Women.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2025Review
- Coronary microvascular dysfunction, arrythmias, and sudden cardiac death: A literature review.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2024Article
- Rethinking False Positive Exercise Electrocardiographic Stress Tests by Assessing Coronary Microvascular Function.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Yield of Comprehensive Coronary Function Testing in Patients with Angina and Unobstructed Coronary Arteries: Endotype Characterisation and Clinical Implications.European cardiology · 2024Article
- Higher Body Mass Index is associated with increased arterial stiffness prior to target organ damage: a cross-sectional cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- Coronary Slow Flow Is Not Diagnostic of Microvascular Dysfunction in Patients With Angina and Unobstructed Coronary Arteries.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Article
- Endothelial cell dysfunction in cardiac disease: driver or consequence?Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Review
- Invasive coronary physiology in patients with angina and non-obstructive coronary artery disease: a consensus document from the coronary microvascular dysfunction workstream of the British Heart Foundation/National Institute for Health Research Partnership.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2022Review
- Global trends and frontiers in research on coronary microvascular dysfunction: a bibliometric analysis from 2002 to 2022.European journal of medical research · 2022Review
- Invasive Functional Coronary Assessment in Myocardial Ischemia with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries: from Pathophysiological Mechanisms to Clinical Implications.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Invasive evaluation of coronary microvascular dysfunction.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022Review
- Comparison of Doppler Flow Velocity and Thermodilution Derived Indexes of Coronary Physiology.JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2022Article
- Ischemia and no obstructive coronary arteries in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.International journal of cardiology · 2022Review
- Invasive and non-invasive assessment of ischaemia in chronic coronary syndromes: translating pathophysiology to clinical practice.European heart journal · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAmong patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease, those with coronary microvascular dysfunction have a poor outcome. Coronary microvascular dysfunction is usually diagnosed by assessing flow reserve with an endothelium-independent vasodilator like adenosine, but the optimal diagnostic threshold is unclear. Furthermore, the incremental value of testing endothelial function has never been assessed before. We sought to determine what pharmacological thresholds correspond to exercise pathophysiology and myocardial ischemia in patients with coronary microvascular dysfunction.
methodsPatients with angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease underwent simultaneous acquisition of coronary pressure and flow during rest, supine bicycle exercise, and pharmacological vasodilatation with adenosine and acetylcholine. Adenosine and acetylcholine coronary flow reserve were calculated as vasodilator/resting coronary blood flow (CFR and AchFR, respectively). Coronary wave intensity analysis was used to quantify the proportion of accelerating wave energy; a normal exercise response was defined as an increase in accelerating wave energy from rest to peak exercise. Ischemia was assessed by quantitative 3-Tesla stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and dichotomously defined by a hyperemic endo-epicardial gradient <1.0.
resultsNinety patients were enrolled (58±10 years, 77% female). Area under the curve using receiver-operating characteristic analysis demonstrated optimal CFR and AchFR thresholds for identifying exercise pathophysiology and ischemia as 2.6 and 1.5, with positive and negative predictive values of 91% and 86%, respectively. Fifty-eight percent had an abnormal CFR (of which 96% also had an abnormal AchFR). Of those with a normal CFR, 53% had an abnormal AchFR, and 47% had a normal AchFR; ischemia rates were 83%, 63%, and 14%, respectively.
conclusionsThe optimal CFR and AchFR diagnostic thresholds are 2.6 and 1.5, with high-positive and negative predictive values, respectively. A normal CFR value should prompt the measurement of AchFR. A stepwise algorithm incorporating both vasodilators can accurately identify an ischemic cause in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.