ArticleCJC open2021
Characterization of the Human Coronary Microvascular Response to Multiple Hyperaemic Agents.
Article in CJC open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction and Epicardial Spasm in Patients With Angina and Myocardial Bridge.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024Article
- Coronary Spasm Testing with Acetylcholine: A Powerful Tool for a Personalized Therapy of Coronary Vasomotor Disorders.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Coronary Microvascular Disease in Contemporary Clinical Practice.Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions · 2023Review
- The relationships between acetylcholine-induced chest pain, objective measures of coronary vascular function and symptom status.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Standard exercise stress testing attenuates peripheral microvascular function in patients with suspected coronary microvascular dysfunction.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is unclear whether the coronary microvascular responses to multiple, mechanistically distinct hyperaemic agents exert similar dilatory responses or share common clinical predictors. This study therefore sought to characterize the index of microvascular resistance (IMR) response to multiple hyperaemic agents in the human coronary circulation.
methodsThermodilution-derived IMR was determined during intravenous adenosine, intracoronary acetylcholine, and intravenous dobutamine in patients with ischemic symptoms and nonobstructive coronary angiograms. A total of 128 patients were studied (44 with adenosine and acetylcholine, and 84 with all agents). Adenosine IMR >25, acetylcholine IMR >31, and dobutamine IMR >29 were used to define elevated responses.
resultsIMR responses demonstrated weak-to-moderate association (adenosine vs acetylcholine IMR: ρ = 0.33; adenosine vs dobutamine IMR: ρ = 0.51; acetylcholine vs dobutamine IMR: ρ = 0.28; all
conclusionsMicrovascular-specific IMR responses to different hyperaemic agents are only moderately associated, whereas the predictors for agent-specific IMR responses varied, suggesting that multiple pharmacologic agents interrogate different microvascular control mechanisms.
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.