Reprising Heberden's description of angina pectoris after 250 years

Myocardial ischaemic syndromes: a new nomenclature to harmonize evolving international clinical practice guidelines

Since the 1960s, cardiologists have adopted several binary classification systems for acute myocardial infarction (MI) that facilitated improved patient management. Conversely, for chronic stable manifestations of myocardial ischaemia, various classifications have emerged over time, often with conflicting terminology-e.g. 'stable coronary artery disease' (CAD), 'stable ischaemic heart disease', and 'chronic coronary syndromes' (CCS). While the 2019 European guidelines introduced CCS to impart symmetry with 'acute coronary syndromes' (ACS), the 2023 American guidelines endorsed the alternative term 'chronic coronary disease'. An unintended consequence of these competing classifications is perpetuation of the restrictive terms 'coronary' and 'disease', often connoting only a singular obstructive CAD mechanism. It is now important to advance a more broadly inclusive terminology for both obstructive and non-obstructive causes of angina and myocardial ischaemia that fosters conceptual clarity and unifies dyssynchronous nomenclatures across guidelines. We, therefore, propose a new binary classification of 'acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes' and 'non-acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes', which comprises both obstructive epicardial and non-obstructive pathogenetic mechanisms, including microvascular dysfunction, vasospastic disorders, and non-coronary causes. We herein retain accepted categories of ACS, ST-segment elevation MI, and non-ST-segment elevation MI, as important subsets for which revascularization is of proven clinical benefit, as well as new terms like ischaemia and MI with non-obstructive coronary arteries. Overall, such a more encompassing nomenclature better aligns, unifies, and harmonizes different pathophysiologic causes of myocardial ischaemia and should result in more refined diagnostic and therapeutic approaches targeted to the multiple pathobiological precipitants of angina pectoris, ischaemia and infarction.

Impact of Sex in the Incidence of Heart Failure in Patients with Chronic Coronary Syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines the available evidence concerning the incidence of heart failure in patients with chronic coronary syndrome, with a focus on gender differences.

RECENT FINDINGS

The incidence of heart failure in the context of chronic coronary syndrome presents conflicting data. Most of the available information stems from studies involving stable patients' post-acute coronary syndrome, revealing a wide range of incidence rates, from less than 3% to over 20%, observed over 5 years of follow-up. Regarding the gender differences in heart failure incidence, there is no consensus about whether women exhibit a higher incidence, particularly in the presence of evidence of obstructive coronary artery disease. However, in cases where obstructive coronary artery disease is absent, women may face a more unfavourable prognosis due to a higher prevalence of microvascular disease and heart failure with preserved ventricular function. The different profile of ischaemic heart disease in women difficult to establish differences in prognosis independently associated with female sex. Targeted investigations are essential to discern the incidence of heart failure in chronic coronary syndrome and explore potential gender-specific associations.

Coronary computed tomography angiography vs functional stress imaging to triage chest pain in the emergency room?

In patients with a suspected acute coronary syndrome, non-elevated (or uncertain) (NSTE-ACS) high sensitivity cardiac troponin, no ECG changes and no recurrence of chest pain, incorporating a coronary computed tomography angiogram (CCTA) or a non-invasive functional stress imaging test as part of the initial workup should be considered (Class IIA, Level of Evidence A). There are pros and cons with each diagnostic approach. CCTA imaging has high sensitivity for detecting coronary atherosclerosis but may not provide a diagnosis since most patients do not have obstructive coronary disease. Functional imaging is useful to explain symptoms and detect obstructive coronary artery disease, but is not useful to diagnose atherosclerosis.