ArticleClinical cardiology2024
Safety and Usefulness of Intracoronary Acetylcholine 200 μg Into the Left Coronary Artery as Vasoreactivity Testing: Comparisons With Intracoronary Acetylcholine Maximum 100 μg.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2024. 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.
- Acetylcholine Provocation Testing for Coronary Vasomotor Disorders.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Differences in Coronary Microvascular Spasms Induced by Acetylcholine and Ergonovine.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Intracoronary acetylcholine for vasospasm provocation in women with ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation during Spasm Provocation Test with Acetylcholine: Clinical Characteristics of Patients and Effect on Coronary Microvascular Function Measurements.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Lack of Class I Vasoreactivity Testing for Diagnosing Patients With Coronary Artery Spasm.Clinical cardiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe retrospectively analyzed the usefulness and safety of intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) 200 μg into the left coronary artery (LCA) as vasoreactivity testing compared with intracoronary ACh 100 μg.
methodsWe recruited 1433 patients who had angina-like chest pain and intracoronary ACh testing in the LCA, including 1234 patients with a maximum ACh 100 μg and 199 patients with a maximum ACh 200 μg. ACh was injected in incremental doses of 20/50/100/200 μg into the LCA. Positive spasm was defined as ≥ 90% stenosis, usual chest pain, and ischemic electrocardiogram (ECG) changes.
resultsThe incidence of coronary constriction ≥ 90%, usual chest pain, and ischemic ECG changes with a maximum ACh of 100 μg was markedly higher than that with a maximum ACh of 200 μg. The frequency of unusual chest pain in patients with a maximum ACh of 200 μg was higher than that in those with a maximum ACh of 100 μg (13% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). In patients with rest angina, positive spasm of maximum ACh 100 μg was significantly higher than that of maximum ACh 200 μg, whereas there was no difference regarding positive spasm in patients with atypical chest pain between the two ACh doses. Major complications (1.38% vs. 1.51%, p = 0.8565) and the occurrence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (1.81% vs. 2.63%, p = 0.6307) during ACh testing in the LCA were not different between the two maximum ACH doses.
conclusionsIntracoronary ACh 200 μg into the LCA is clinically useful and safe for vasoreactivity testing when intracoronary ACh 100 μg dose not provoke spasms.
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.