Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32519879›Full record

ArticleCirculation. Cardiovascular interventions2020

Optimal Use of Vasodilators for Diagnosis of Microvascular Angina in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory.

Haseeb Rahman, Ozan M Demir, Matthew Ryan, Hannah McConkey, Cian Scannell, Howard Ellis, Andrew Webb, Amedeo Chiribiri, Divaka Perera

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Coronary microvascular dysfunction, arrythmias, and sudden cardiac death: A literature review.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Endothelial cell dysfunction in cardiac disease: driver or consequence?Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Invasive evaluation of coronary microvascular dysfunction.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Haseeb RahmanSchool of Cardiovascular Medicine and Sciences, British Heart Foundation Centre of Excellence and National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (H.R., O.M.D., M.R., H.M., H.E., A.W., D.P.), King's College London, United Kingdom.
Ozan M DemirSchool of Cardiovascular Medicine and Sciences, British Heart Foundation Centre of Excellence and National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (H.R., O.M.D., M.R., H.M., H.E., A.W., D.P.), King's College London, United Kingdom.
Matthew RyanSchool of Cardiovascular Medicine and Sciences, British Heart Foundation Centre of Excellence and National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (H.R., O.M.D., M.R., H.M., H.E., A.W., D.P.), King's College London, United Kingdom.
Hannah McConkeySchool of Cardiovascular Medicine and Sciences, British Heart Foundation Centre of Excellence and National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (H.R., O.M.D., M.R., H.M., H.E., A.W., D.P.), King's College London, United Kingdom.
Cian ScannellSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences (C.S., A.C.), King's College London, United Kingdom.
Howard EllisSchool of Cardiovascular Medicine and Sciences, British Heart Foundation Centre of Excellence and National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (H.R., O.M.D., M.R., H.M., H.E., A.W., D.P.), King's College London, United Kingdom.
Andrew WebbSchool of Cardiovascular Medicine and Sciences, British Heart Foundation Centre of Excellence and National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (H.R., O.M.D., M.R., H.M., H.E., A.W., D.P.), King's College London, United Kingdom.
Amedeo ChiribiriSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences (C.S., A.C.), King's College London, United Kingdom.
Divaka PereraSchool of Cardiovascular Medicine and Sciences, British Heart Foundation Centre of Excellence and National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (H.R., O.M.D., M.R., H.M., H.E., A.W., D.P.), King's College London, United Kingdom.
British Heart Foundation · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/16/49/32320British Heart Foundation RE/18/2/34213
6 · The paper itself

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

Cardiac CatheterizationCoronary CirculationHemodynamicsMicrocirculationAcetylcholineAdenosineAgedExercise TestFemaleHumansMaleMicrovascular AnginaMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsVasodilator AgentsAcetylcholineAdenosineVasodilator Agentscoronary circulationendotheliummagnetic resonance imagingmicrovascular anginamyocardial ischemia

Identifiers

PMID32519879
PMCPMC7299228
OpenAlexW3033775485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.