Role of acetylcholine spasm provocation test as a pathophysiological assessment in nonobstructive coronary artery disease

Coronary angiography (CAG) sometimes shows nonobstructive coronary arteries in patients with suspected angina or acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The high prevalence of nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in those patients has recently been reported not only in Japan but also in Western countries, and is clinically attracting attention. Coronary spasm is considered to be one of the leading causes of both suspected stable angina and ACS with nonobstructive coronary arteries. Coronary spasm could also be associated with left ventricular dysfunction leading to heart failure, which could be improved following the administration of calcium channel blockers. Because we rarely capture spontaneous attacks of coronary spasm with electrocardiograms or Holter recordings, an invasive diagnostic modality, acetylcholine (ACh) provocation test, can be useful in detecting coronary spasm during CAG. Furthermore, we can use the ACh-provocation test to identify high-risk patients with coronary spasm complicated with organic coronary stenosis, and then treat with intensive care. Nonobstructive CAD includes not only epicardial coronary spasm but also microvascular spasm or dysfunction that can be associated with recurrent anginal attacks and poor quality of life. ACh-provocation test could also be helpful for the assessment of microvascular spasm or dysfunction. We hope that cardiologists will increasingly perform ACh-provocation test to assess the pathophysiology of nonobstructive CAD.

Safety and usefulness of acetylcholine provocation test in patients with no culprit lesions on emergency coronary angiography

BACKGROUND

Vasospastic angina (VSA), which often causes acute coronary syndrome (ACS), can be diagnosed by intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) provocation test. However, the safety and usefulness of ACh provocation test in ACS patients on emergency coronary angiography (CAG) compared to non-emergency settings are unclear.

METHODS

A total of 529 patients undergoing ACh provocation test during emergency or non-emergency CAG were included. Patients with resuscitated cardiac arrest were excluded. The primary endpoint was adverse events defined as a composite of death, ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia, myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, cardiac tamponade, and stroke within 24 h after ACh provocation test.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences of the clinical characteristics between the groups of emergency (n = 84) and non-emergency (n = 445) ACh provocation test. The rate of positive ACh provocation test was similar between the 2 groups (50% vs. 49%, p = 0.81). Similarly, the incidence of adverse events in patients with emergency and non-emergency ACh provocation test did not significantly differ (1.2% vs. 1.3%, p = 1.00).

CONCLUSION

ACh provocation test can be safely performed in ACS patients with no obstructive culprit lesions on emergency CAG, and may be useful to diagnose VSA in those patients.

Mental Health Status in Patients Undergoing Intracoronary Acetylcholine Provocation Test

BACKGROUND

Previous studies showed the relation of mental distress such as anxiety and depression to coronary vasoconstriction and myocardial ischemia. However, the mental health status of patients suspected to have vasospastic angina is unclear.

METHODS

A total of 99 patients underwent intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) provocation tests for the diagnosis of vasospastic angina and mental health assessment using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y (STAI Y-2). Patients with binary GHQ-12 ≥ 4 were defined as having poor mental health.

RESULTS

Median GHQ-12 and STAI Y-2 were 3 [1, 6] and 44 [36, 50]. Forty-one (41%) patients had binary GHQ-12 ≥ 4, and 48 (48%) had positive ACh provocation tests. The number of provoked vasospasms and rate of electrocardiographic change and chest pain during ACh tests were not significantly different between patients with and without GHQ-12 ≥ 4. The incidence of positive ACh provocation test was similar between the two groups (49% vs. 48%, p = 1.00). The multivariable analysis indicated that younger age, no history of percutaneous coronary intervention and no diabetes mellitus were factors associated with higher GHQ-12 and/or STAI Y-2 scores.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 40% of patients who underwent ACh provocation tests had poor mental condition. No impact of mental distress on positive ACh tests was found in this study.

Omitting 50 μg of intracoronary acetylcholine injection in the left coronary artery during spasm provocation test

BACKGROUND

Although guidelines recommend intracoronary administration of acetylcholine (ACh) with incremental doses of 20, 50, and 100 μg into the left coronary artery (LCA) during spasm provocation test for diagnosing vasospastic angina, 50 μg of ACh rarely induced significant coronary vasospasm when no vasoconstriction was observed with 20 μg of ACh in a previous report. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of omitting 50 μg according to the vasoreactivity by 20 μg of ACh in the LCA.

METHODS

A total of 556 patients undergoing ACh provocation test with 20 μg followed by 50 and/or 100 μg were retrospectively included. Injection of 50 μg of ACh was primarily omitted when vasoconstriction <25 % was observed with 20 μg, which was left to operator's discretion. Adverse events were defined as a composite of ventricular fibrillation, sustained ventricular tachycardia, and cardiogenic shock during ACh test in the LCA.

RESULTS

Positive ACh test in the LCA was observed in 245 (44.1 %) patients. Overall, patients with LCA constriction <25 % by 20 μg of ACh had a lower rate of positive ACh test than their counterpart (24.0 % vs. 88.4 %, p < 0.001). In patients with LCA constriction ≥25 % by 20 μg, the incidence of adverse events was significantly higher than in those with LCA constriction <25 % during the provocation test at doses of 50 and 100 μg (2.3 % vs. 0 %, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Omitting 50 μg of ACh in the LCA may be safe and feasible when little vasoconstriction was observed with preceding injection of 20 μg of ACh during spasm provocation test for diagnosing vasospastic angina. However, we believe that 50 μg of ACh should not be omitted when 20 μg of ACh induced LCA constriction ≥25 %.

Vasospastic angina and overlapping cardiac disorders in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

Vasospastic angina (VSA) reportedly accounts for one form of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA). Intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) testing is useful for diagnosing VSA although invasive provocation testing after SCA is a clinical challenge. In addition, even if the ACh test is positive, any causal relationship between VSA and SCA is often unclear because patients with VSA may have other underlying cardiac disorders.

METHODS

A total of 20 patients without overt structural heart disease who had been fully resuscitated from SCA were included. All patients underwent the ACh provocation test and scrutiny such as cardiac computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Patients were followed up for all-cause death or recurrent SCA including appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.

RESULTS

An ACh provocation test was performed 20 ± 17 days after cardiac arrest. Fifteen out of 20 (75.0%) patients had a positive ACh test and 2 (10.0%) had adverse events such as ventricular tachycardia and transient cardiogenic shock during the test. In patients with a positive ACh test, 6 of 15 (40.0%) patients had other overlapping cardiac disorders such as long QT syndrome, Brugada syndrome, cardiac sarcoidosis, myocarditis, or cardiomyopathy. Long-term prognosis was not different regardless of a positive ACh test or the presence of other cardiac disorders overlapping with VSA.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-quarters of the patients who had been resuscitated from SCA had a positive ACh test. Further examinations revealed other overlapping cardiac disorders in addition to VSA in 40% of patients with a positive ACh test.

Impact of preceding acetylcholine provocation testing on following coronary physiological assessment during an interventional diagnostic procedure

BACKGROUND

Intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) provocation test and coronary physiological assessment are useful interventional diagnostic procedures for evaluating ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA). However, the appropriate sequential order of the diagnostic procedures has been a matter of debate. We investigated the impact of preceding ACh provocation on following coronary physiological assessment.

METHODS

Patients suspected of INOCA underwent invasive coronary physiological assessment using thermodilution method and were divided into two groups according to the implementation of ACh provocation test. The ACh group was further divided into the positive and negative ACh groups. In the ACh group, intracoronary ACh provocation was performed before the invasive coronary physiological assessment. The main interest of this study was to compare coronary physiological indices among the no ACh, negative ACh, and positive ACh groups.

RESULTS

Of 120 patients, the no ACh, and negative and positive ACh groups included 46 (38.3 %), 36 (30.0 %), and 38 (31.7 %), respectively. Fractional flow reserve was lower in the no ACh group than in the ACh group. Resting mean transit time was significantly longer in the positive ACh group, followed by the no ACh and negative ACh groups (1.22 ± 0.55 vs. 1.00 ± 0.46 vs. 0.74 ± 0.36 s, p < 0.001). Index of microcirculatory resistance and coronary flow reserve did not differ significantly among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Preceding ACh provocation influenced following physiological assessment, particularly when ACh test was positive. Further studies are warranted to determine which interventional diagnostic procedure, ACh provocation or physiological assessment, should be preceded in the invasive evaluation of INOCA.

Safety and clinical implications of coronary spasm provocation testing in patients presenting with myocardial infarction with no overt culprit lesion

BACKGROUND

Acetylcholine (ACh) provocation testing is a critical diagnostic tool for identifying coronary artery spasms in patients presenting with angina pectoris or myocardial infarction (MI) who do not exhibit obstructive coronary artery disease. Despite its utility, the use of ACh testing is limited due to concerns regarding potential life-threatening complications and a historical underrepresentation of MI populations in clinical research.

METHODS

This registry-based study analyzed 1063 patients with 115 presenting with MI and 948 without (non-MI), who underwent ACh spasm provocation testing. The primary safety endpoints include arrhythmic and other acute complications. The primary clinical endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The median follow-up was 2.4 years.

RESULTS

The ACh testing showed low incidences of major cardiovascular complications with no incidences of procedure-related death. Additionally, rates of fatal ventricular arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, and procedure-related myocardial infarction showed no significant differences between the MI and non-MI patient groups. There was no significant difference in MACE between MI and non-MI groups stratified based on the ACh test responses. Multivariable analysis revealed that ST-segment elevation and diabetes mellitus were associated with a higher rate of MACE in MI patients with positive ACh tests (adjusted hazard ratio 10.98 [95 % CI: 1.14-106.07] and 8.80 [1.14-68.11], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that ACh provocation testing is safe for patients with MI, validating its expanded use in clinical settings. ST-segment elevation may serve as a prognostic marker for stratifying risk and optimizing management in patients evaluated for coronary artery spasm.

Ultra-long acting calcium channel blockers may decrease accuracy of the acetylcholine provocation test

BACKGROUND

When drug-induced coronary spasm provocation tests are performed, a washout period of >48h for calcium channel blockers (CCBs) is uniformly recommended. However, each CCB has a distinct half-life, and little is known about the influence of prior oral administration of CCBs on acetylcholine provocation test to evaluate coronary vasomotor reaction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined 245 consecutive patients with suspected vasospastic angina who had undergone acetylcholine provocation test. Of those patients, 29 patients had been on amlodipine, an ultra-long term acting CCB (group A), 34 on other CCBs (group O), and 182 patients on no CCB (group N). After CCBs had been withheld > 48h, we performed acetylcholine provocation, which resulted in 152 positive, 36 intermediate, and 57 negative reactions. We evaluated coronary artery tone calculated as follows: (luminal diameter after nitrate-baseline luminal diameter)÷(luminal diameter after nitrate)×100 (%). In group A patients, coronary artery tone was lower (A:9.1±6.9% vs. O:11.7±8.3% vs. N:12.1±8.5%, p=0.0011) and the positive rate of acetylcholine provocation test was lower than group O and group N (A:41% vs. O:68% vs. N:64%, p=0.047). Multivariate logistic analysis showed that taking amlodipine until 2days before acetylcholine provocation test was a significant inverse predictor for acetylcholine-provoked coronary spasm (odds ratio 0.327; 95% confidence interval 0.125-0.858, p=0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Residual vasodilatory effects of ultra-long acting CCB may decrease coronary artery tone and the vasoconstrictive reaction to acetylcholine suggesting that a 2-day pre-test drug holiday may not be long enough.