Intracoronary Bolus Injection Versus Intravenous Infusion of Adenosine for Assessment of Coronary Flow Velocity Reserve in Women With Signs and Symptoms of Myocardial Ischemia and No Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

Invasive Coronary Assessment in Myocardial Ischemia with No Obstructive Coronary Arteries

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is threefold: (i) to give an overview of well-established invasive methods for assessing patients with ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA) in the cardiac catheterization laboratory; (ii) to describe the prognostic and treatment implications based on these findings, and (iii) to discuss current knowledge gaps and future perspectives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have demonstrated that invasive coronary function testing not only allows for risk stratification of patients with INOCA but also guides medical therapy with improvement in symptoms and quality of life. Based on these findings, invasive coronary function assessment is now a class 2a recommendation in the 2021 ACC/AHA chest pain guideline to improve the diagnosis of coronary microvascular dysfunction and to enhance risk stratification. Invasive functional testing for patients with INOCA is well established and easily performed in the catheterization laboratory. Comprehensive invasive assessment is a key to differentiating INOCA endotypes and optimizing both medical therapy and preventive strategies including lifestyle modification.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Cardiovascular Imaging Techniques to Assess Microvascular Dysfunction

The understanding of microvascular dysfunction without evidence of epicardial coronary artery disease pales in comparison with that of obstructive epicardial coronary artery disease. A primary limitation in the past had been the lack of development of noninvasive methods of detecting and quantifying microvascular dysfunction. This limitation has particularly affected the ability to study the pathophysiology, morbidity, and treatment of this disease. More recently, almost all of the noninvasive cardiac imaging modalities have been used to quantify blood flow and advance understanding of microvascular dysfunction.

Adenosine vs Regadenoson Pharmacologic Stress Differs in Women with Suspected Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction: A Report from the Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation-Coronary Vascular Dysfunction (WISE-CVD) Study

Background

Stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging with myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPRI) measurement has emerged as a noninvasive method for assessing coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Pharmacologic stress with adenosine or regadenoson is typically used with comparable coronary vasodilation, but higher unadjusted MPRI has been reported with regadenoson in healthy men. This difference has not been assessed in symptomatic or healthy women.

Methods

In a prospective cohort study, 139 symptomatic women with suspected CMD and no obstructive CAD underwent stress CMR and invasive coronary flow reserve (CFR) testing. Adenosine was the default vasodilator (n=99), while regadenoson was used if history of asthma or prior adenosine intolerance (n=40). Stress CMR was also performed in 40 age-matched healthy controls using adenosine (n=20) and regadenoson (n=20). Unpaired t-tests and analysis of covariance were performed to compare MPRI with adenosine and regadenoson in the symptomatic women and healthy controls.

Results

Compared to regadenoson cases, adenosine cases had lower invasive CFR (2.64±0.62 vs 2.94±0.68, p=0.01) and pharmacologic heart rate change (28±16 vs 38±15 bpm, p=0.0008). Unadjusted MPRI was lower in the adenosine compared to regadenoson cases (1.73±0.38 vs 2.27±0.59, p<0.0001). When adjusted for heart rate, rate-pressure-product, and invasive CFR, MPRI remained lower in the adenosine cases (p<0.0001). Invasive CFR to adenosine correlated with adenosine MPRI (r 0.17, p=0.02) but not regadenoson MPRI (r -0.14, p=0.19). There was no significant difference in MPRI in the controls who received adenosine vs regadenoson (2.27±0.33 vs 2.38±0.44, p=0.36).

Conclusion

In women undergoing stress CMR for suspected CMD, those who received adenosine had lower MPRI than those who received regadenoson. However, there were no differences in MPRI in the healthy controls. These findings suggest there may be physiologic differences in adenosine and regadenoson response in the coronary microcirculation of symptomatic women.

The role of coronary reactivity testing in women with no obstructive coronary artery disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Two-thirds of women with signs and symptoms of ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA) have abnormal coronary reactivity. These women are challenging to assess, diagnose and manage because of a lack of evidence-based guidelines. Furthermore, they are considered to be at 'low risk' by most physicians, often receive no specific therapy and tend to be dismissed from subspecialty care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Coronary reactivity testing (CRT) is considered the reference-standard for evaluation of epicardial and microvascular coronary function in response to various vasoactive agents. It provides a comprehensive vascular function assessment for diagnosis, a guide for management, and has prognostic benefit that outweighs the risk of the procedure. We recently demonstrated the prognostic value of assessing coronary vascular reactivity in women with signs and symptoms of ischemia, especially those with no obstructive coronary artery disease.

SUMMARY

Invasive CRT is a feasible, useful method to identify coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) and risk stratify women with INOCA. It has a comparable safety record with other invasive procedures. Future research is directed at optimizing patient selection, streamlining of invasive CRT methods using user-friendly catheters to enhance feasibility in the routine clinical setting, and optimizing treatment protocols, with clinical trials designed to evaluate outcomes.