Trial reportEuropean heart journal2025
Coronary function testing vs angiography alone to guide treatment of angina with non-obstructive coronary arteries: the ILIAS ANOCA trial.
Trial report in European heart journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endotype-informed therapy and effects on illness perception and psychological health in patients with chest pain and no obstructive coronary artery disease.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2026Trial
- Women's IschemiA TRial to Reduce Events In Non-ObstRuctive CAD (WARRIOR): a randomised controlled trial.Open heart · 2026Trial
- Intracoronary physiological indices for coronary microvascular dysfunction: from concept to clinical application.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction: Pathophysiology, Clinical Phenotypes, and Mechanism-Guided Diagnostic Strategies.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- 2024 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes : Statement of endorsement by the NVVC.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2026Review
- The Contemporary Role of Intracoronary Physiological Assessment: Fractional Flow Reserve, Non-Hyperemic Pressure Ratios, Wireless Technologies, and Microcirculation.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Radial Access Strategies: Focus on Coronary Function Testing for Angina With Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Yield and Safety of Invasive Coronary Function Testing After Radial Versus Femoral Access.Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions · 2026Article
- Coronary Sinus Reduction for REDUCER-I Patients With Refractory Angina and Angiographically Nonobstructive Coronary Artery Disease.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Unmet Need to Verify Coronary Artery Spasm in Patients with Chronic or Acute Coronary Syndrome and Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Clinical profile and long-term outcomes of chest pain patients with coronary microvascular dysfunction from the emergency department - results from the Yale-CMD registry.Microvascular research · 2026Article
- Impact of Coronary Function Testing on Symptoms and Quality of Life in Patients with Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction: Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Metoprolol vs. Diltiazem in Patients with Angina and Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease with or Without Evidence of Coronary Microvascular Spasm on Acetylcholine Testing.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsInvasive coronary function testing (CFT) identifies coronary vasomotor disorders in up to 90% of patients with angina with non-obstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA). The ILIAS ANOCA trial hypothesized that routine ad hoc CFT would be feasible, safe, and effective in providing an early, comprehensive diagnosis. Additionally, it was anticipated that combining CFT with a disease-specific treatment protocol would significantly improve quality of life in ANOCA patients compared with standard care.
methodsAfter excluding patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) during clinically indicated invasive coronary angiography (ICA), eligible patients underwent CFT and were randomized to either the standard care group, where CFT results remained blinded, or the intervention group, where CFT results were disclosed along with a tailored medical therapy protocol. The primary outcome was the mean difference in the within-subject change in Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score (SAQSS) between groups from baseline to a follow-up of 6 months. The trial is registered with the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (NL-OMON20739).
resultsA total of 255 patients consented, of whom 153 patients (60%) without CAD underwent CFT and were randomized 1:1 to the standard care (n = 76) or intervention group (n = 77). All CFT procedures were successful without adverse events. A vasomotor disorder was identified in 120 patients (78%). At 6-month follow-up, the SAQSS improved significantly in the intervention group compared with the control group, with an intervention effect of 9.4 units (95% confidence interval 3.9-14.9, P = .001). There were no major adverse cardiac events at the 6-month follow-up.
conclusionsRoutine CFT during the initial ICA was feasible, safe, and had high diagnostic yield. Implementing a pragmatic CFT protocol combined with a disease-specific treatment protocol significantly improved disease-related quality of life in patients with ANOCA compared with standard care.
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.