Rethinking False Positive Exercise Electrocardiographic Stress Tests by Assessing Coronary Microvascular Function.

BACKGROUND: Exercise electrocardiographic stress testing (EST) has historically been validated against the demonstration of obstructive coronary artery disease. However, myocardial ischemia can occur because of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the specificity of EST to detect an ischemic substrate against the reference standard of coronary endothelium-independent and endothelium-dependent microvascular function in patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA). METHODS: Patients with ANOCA underwent invasive coronary physiological assessment using adenosine and acetylcholine. CMD was defined as impaired endothelium-independent and/or endothelium-dependent function. EST was performed using a standard Bruce treadmill protocol, with ischemia defined as the appearance of ≥0.1-mV ST-segment depression 80 ms from the J-point on electrocardiography. The study was powered to detect specificity of ≥91%. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were enrolled (65% women, mean age 60 ± 8 years). Thirty-two patients developed ischemia (ischemic group) during EST, whereas 70 patients did not (nonischemic group); both groups were phenotypically similar. Ischemia during EST was 100% specific for CMD. Acetylcholine flow reserve was the strongest predictor of ischemia during exercise. Using endothelium-independent and endothelium-dependent microvascular dysfunction as the reference standard, the false positive rate of EST dropped to 0%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ANOCA, ischemia on EST was highly specific of an underlying ischemic substrate. These findings challenge the traditional belief that EST has a high false positive rate.

Characterizing Mechanisms of Ischemia in Patients With Myocardial Bridges.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial bridges (MBs) are prevalent and can be associated with acute and chronic ischemic syndromes. We sought to determine the substrates for ischemia in patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries and a MB in the left anterior descending artery. METHODS: Patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries underwent the acquisition of intracoronary pressure and flow during rest, supine bicycle exercise, and adenosine infusion. Coronary wave intensity analysis was performed, with perfusion efficiency defined as accelerating wave energy/total wave energy (%). Epicardial endothelial dysfunction was defined as a reduction in epicardial vessel diameter ≥20% in response to intracoronary acetylcholine infusion. Patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries and a MB were compared with 2 angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries groups with no MB: 1 with coronary microvascular disease (CMD: coronary flow reserve, <2.5) and 1 with normal coronary flow reserve (reference: coronary flow reserve, ≥2.5). RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were enrolled in the study (30 MB, 33 CMD, and 29 reference). Fractional flow reserve in these 3 groups was 0.86±0.05, 0.92±0.04, and 0.94±0.05; coronary flow reserve was 2.5±0.5, 2.0±0.3, and 3.2±0.6. Perfusion efficiency increased numerically during exercise in the reference group (65±9%-69±13%; P=0.063) but decreased in the CMD (68±10%-50±10%; P<0.001) and MB (66±9%-55±9%; P<0.001) groups. The reduction in perfusion efficiency had distinct causes: in CMD, this was driven by microcirculation-derived energy in early diastole, whereas in MB, this was driven by diminished accelerating wave energy, due to the upstream bridge, in early systole. Epicardial endothelial dysfunction was more common in the MB group (54% versus 29% reference and 38% CMD). Overall, 93% of patients with a MB had an identifiable ischemic substrate. CONCLUSIONS: MBs led to impaired coronary perfusion efficiency during exercise, which was due to diminished accelerating wave energy in early systole compared with the reference group. Additionally, there was a high prevalence of endothelial and microvascular dysfunction. These ischemic mechanisms may represent distinct treatment targets.

Coronary Slow Flow Is Not Diagnostic of Microvascular Dysfunction in Patients With Angina and Unobstructed Coronary Arteries.

Background Guidelines recommend that coronary slow flow phenomenon (CSFP), defined as corrected thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count (CTFC) >$$ > $$27, can diagnose coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) in patients with angina and nonobstructed coronary arteries. CSFP has also historically been regarded as a sign of coronary endothelial dysfunction (CED). We sought to validate the utility of CTFC, as a binary classifier of CSFP and as a continuous variable, to diagnose CMD and CED. Methods and Results Patients with angina and nonobstructed coronary arteries had simultaneous coronary pressure and flow velocity measured using a dual sensor-tipped guidewire during rest, adenosine-mediated hyperemia, and intracoronary acetylcholine infusion. CMD was defined as the inability to augment coronary blood flow in response to adenosine (coronary flow reserve <2.5) and CED in response to acetylcholine (acetylcholine flow reserve ≤1.5); 152 patients underwent assessment using adenosine, of whom 82 underwent further acetylcholine testing. Forty-six patients (30%) had CSFP, associated with lower flow velocity and higher microvascular resistance as compared with controls (16.5±$$ \pm $$6.9 versus 20.2±$$ \pm $$6.9 cm/s; P=0.001 and 6.26±$$ \pm $$1.83 versus 5.36±$$ \pm $$1.83 mm Hg/cm/s; P=0.009, respectively). However, as a diagnostic test, CSFP had poor sensitivity and specificity for both CMD (26.7% and 65.2%) and CED (21.1% and 56.0%). Furthermore, on receiver operating characteristics analyses, CTFC could not predict CMD or CED (area under the curve, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.32%-0.50%] and 0.36 [95% CI, 0.23%-0.49%], respectively). Conclusions In patients with angina and nonobstructed coronary arteries, CSFP and CTFC are not diagnostic of CMD or CED. Guidelines supporting the use of CTFC in the diagnosis of CMD should be revisited.

Coronary Wave Intensity Analysis as an Invasive and Vessel-Specific Index of Myocardial Viability.

BACKGROUND: Coronary angiography and viability testing are the cornerstones of diagnosing and managing ischemic cardiomyopathy. At present, no single test serves both needs. Coronary wave intensity analysis interrogates both contractility and microvascular physiology of the subtended myocardium and therefore has the potential to fulfil the goal of completely assessing coronary physiology and myocardial viability in a single procedure. We hypothesized that coronary wave intensity analysis measured during coronary angiography would predict viability with a similar accuracy to late-gadolinium-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. METHODS: Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and extensive coronary disease were enrolled. Coronary wave intensity analysis was assessed during cardiac catheterization at rest, during adenosine-induced hyperemia, and during low-dose dobutamine stress using a dual pressure-Doppler sensing coronary guidewire. Scar burden was assessed with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Regional left ventricular function was assessed at baseline and 6-month follow-up after optimization of medical-therapy±revascularization, using transthoracic echocardiography. The primary outcome was myocardial viability, determined by the retrospective observation of functional recovery. RESULTS: Forty participants underwent baseline physiology, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and echocardiography, and 30 had echocardiography at 6 months; 21/42 territories were viable on follow-up echocardiography. Resting backward compression wave energy was significantly greater in viable than in nonviable territories (-5240±3772 versus -1873±1605 W m-2 s-1, P<0.001), and had comparable accuracy to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for predicting viability (area under the curve 0.812 versus 0.757, P=0.649); a threshold of -2500 W m-2 s-1 had 86% sensitivity and 76% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Backward compression wave energy has accuracy similar to that of late-gadolinium-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the prediction of viability. Coronary wave intensity analysis has the potential to streamline the management of ischemic cardiomyopathy, in a manner analogous to the effect of fractional flow reserve on the management of stable angina.

Optimal Use of Vasodilators for Diagnosis of Microvascular Angina in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease, those with coronary microvascular dysfunction have a poor outcome. Coronary microvascular dysfunction is usually diagnosed by assessing flow reserve with an endothelium-independent vasodilator like adenosine, but the optimal diagnostic threshold is unclear. Furthermore, the incremental value of testing endothelial function has never been assessed before. We sought to determine what pharmacological thresholds correspond to exercise pathophysiology and myocardial ischemia in patients with coronary microvascular dysfunction. METHODS: Patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease underwent simultaneous acquisition of coronary pressure and flow during rest, supine bicycle exercise, and pharmacological vasodilatation with adenosine and acetylcholine. Adenosine and acetylcholine coronary flow reserve were calculated as vasodilator/resting coronary blood flow (CFR and AchFR, respectively). Coronary wave intensity analysis was used to quantify the proportion of accelerating wave energy; a normal exercise response was defined as an increase in accelerating wave energy from rest to peak exercise. Ischemia was assessed by quantitative 3-Tesla stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and dichotomously defined by a hyperemic endo-epicardial gradient <1.0. RESULTS: Ninety patients were enrolled (58±10 years, 77% female). Area under the curve using receiver-operating characteristic analysis demonstrated optimal CFR and AchFR thresholds for identifying exercise pathophysiology and ischemia as 2.6 and 1.5, with positive and negative predictive values of 91% and 86%, respectively. Fifty-eight percent had an abnormal CFR (of which 96% also had an abnormal AchFR). Of those with a normal CFR, 53% had an abnormal AchFR, and 47% had a normal AchFR; ischemia rates were 83%, 63%, and 14%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal CFR and AchFR diagnostic thresholds are 2.6 and 1.5, with high-positive and negative predictive values, respectively. A normal CFR value should prompt the measurement of AchFR. A stepwise algorithm incorporating both vasodilators can accurately identify an ischemic cause in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease.

Physiological Stratification of Patients With Angina Due to Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is defined by diminished flow reserve. Functional and structural CMD endotypes have recently been described, with normal and elevated minimal microvascular resistance, respectively. OBJECTIVES: This study determined the mechanism of altered resting and maximal flow in CMD endotypes. METHODS: A total of 86 patients with angina but no obstructive coronary disease underwent coronary pressure and flow measurement during rest, exercise, and adenosine-mediated hyperemia and were classified as the reference group or as patients with CMD by a coronary flow reserve threshold of 2.5; functional or structural endotypes were distinguished by a hyperemic microvascular resistance threshold of 2.5 mm Hg/cm/s. Endothelial function was assessed by forearm blood flow (FBF) response to acetylcholine, and nitric oxide synthase (NOS) activity was defined as the inverse of FBF reserve to NG-monomethyl-L-arginine. RESULTS: Of the 86 patients, 46 had CMD (28 functional, 18 structural), and 40 patients formed the reference group. Resting coronary blood flow (CBF) (24.6 ± 2.0 cm/s vs. 16.6 ± 3.9 cm/s vs. 15.1 ± 4.7 cm/s; p < 0.001) and NOS activity (2.27 ± 0.96 vs. 1.77 ± 0.59 vs. 1.30 ± 0.16; p < 0.001) were higher in the functional group compared with the structural CMD and reference groups, respectively. The structural group had lower acetylcholine FBF augmentation than the functional or reference group (2.1 ± 1.8 vs. 4.1 ± 1.7 vs. 4.5 ± 2.0; p < 0.001). On exercise, oxygen demand was highest (rate-pressure product: 22,157 ± 5,497 beats/min/mm Hg vs. 19,519 ± 4,653 beats/min/mm Hg vs. 17,530 ± 4,678 beats/min/mm Hg; p = 0.004), but peak CBF was lowest in patients with structural CMD compared with the functional and reference groups. CONCLUSIONS: Functional CMD is characterized by elevated resting flow that is linked to enhanced NOS activity. Patients with structural CMD have endothelial dysfunction, which leads to diminished peak CBF augmentation and increased demand during exercise. The value of pathophysiologically stratified therapy warrants investigation.

Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction Is Associated With Myocardial Ischemia and Abnormal Coronary Perfusion During Exercise.

BACKGROUND: Coronary microvascular dysfunction (MVD) is defined by impaired flow augmentation in response to a pharmacological vasodilator in the presence of nonobstructive coronary artery disease. It is unknown whether diminished coronary vasodilator response correlates with abnormal exercise physiology or inducible myocardial ischemia. METHODS: Patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease had simultaneous coronary pressure and flow velocity measured using a dual sensor-tipped guidewire during rest, supine bicycle exercise, and adenosine-mediated hyperemia. Microvascular resistance (MR) was calculated as coronary pressure divided by flow velocity. Wave intensity analysis quantified the proportion of accelerating wave energy (perfusion efficiency). Global myocardial blood flow and subendocardial:subepicardial perfusion ratio were quantified using 3-Tesla cardiac magnetic resonance imaging during hyperemia and rest; inducible ischemia was defined as hyperemic subendocardial:subepicardial perfusion ratio <1.0. Patients were classified as having MVD if coronary flow reserve <2.5 and controls if coronary flow reserve ≥2.5, with researchers blinded to the classification. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were enrolled (78% female, 57±10 years), 45 (53%) were classified as having MVD. Of the MVD group, 82% had inducible ischemia compared with 22% of controls (P<0.001); global myocardial perfusion reserve was 2.01±0.41 and 2.68±0.49 (P<0.001). In controls, coronary perfusion efficiency improved from rest to exercise and was unchanged during hyperemia (59±11% vs 65±14% vs 57±18%; P=0.02 and P=0.14). In contrast, perfusion efficiency decreased during both forms of stress in MVD (61±12 vs 44±10 vs 42±11%; both P<0.001). Among patients with a coronary flow reserve <2.5, 62% had functional MVD, with normal minimal MR (hyperemic MR<2.5 mmHg/cm/s), and 38% had structural MVD with elevated hyperemic MR. Resting MR was lower in those with functional MVD (4.2±1.0 mmHg/cm/s) than in those with structural MVD (6.9±1.7 mmHg/cm/s) or controls (7.3±2.2 mmHg/cm/s; both P<0.001). During exercise, the structural group had a higher systolic blood pressure (188±25 mmHg) than did those with functional MVD (161±27 mmHg; P=0.004) and controls (156±30 mmHg; P<0.001). Functional and structural MVD had similar stress myocardial perfusion and exercise perfusion efficiency values. CONCLUSION: In patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary artery disease, diminished coronary flow reserve characterizes a cohort with inducible ischemia and a maladaptive physiological response to exercise. We have identified 2 endotypes of MVD with distinctive systemic vascular responses to exercise; whether endotypes have a different prognosis or require different treatments merits further investigation.

Resting Coronary Flow Varies With Normal Cardiac Catheter Laboratory Stimuli.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence supports physiology-guided revascularization, with Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) the most commonly used invasive measure of coronary blood flow impairment at the time of diagnostic angiography. Recently, there has been growing interest in stenosis severity indices measured at rest, such as Instantaneous Wave Free Ratio (iFR) and the ratio of distal coronary to aortic pressure at rest (resting Pd/Pa). Their reliability may, theoretically, be more susceptible to changes in microvascular tone and coronary flow. This study aimed to assess variability of resting coronary flow with normal catheter laboratory stimuli. METHODS: Simultaneous intracoronary pressure (Pd) and Doppler Average Peak Flow Velocity (APV) recordings were made at rest and following the verbal warning preceding an intravenous adenosine infusion. RESULTS: 72 patients undergoing elective angiography were recruited (mean age 62 years, 52.7% male) with a wide range of coronary artery disease severity (FFR 0.86 ±â€¯0.09). Average peak flow velocity varied significantly between measurements at rest and just prior to commencement of adenosine, with a mean variation of 10.2% (17.82 ±â€¯9.41 cm/s vs. 19.63 ±â€¯10.44 cm/s, p < 0.001) with an accompanying significant drop in microvascular resistance (6.27 ±â€¯2.73 mm Hg·cm-1·s-1 vs. 5.8 ±â€¯2.92 mm Hg·cm-1·s-1, p < 0.001). These changes occurred without significant change in systemic hemodynamic measures. Whilst there was a trend for an associated change in the resting indices, Pd/Pa and iFR, this was statistically and clinically not significant (0.92 ±â€¯0.08 vs. 0.92 ±â€¯0.08, p = 0.110; and 0.90 ±â€¯0.11 vs. 0.89 ±â€¯0.12, p = 0.073). CONCLUSION: Resting coronary flow and microvascular resistance vary significantly with normal catheter laboratory stimuli, such as simple warnings. The clinical impact of these observed changes on indices of stenosis severity, particularly those measured at rest, needs further assessment within larger cohorts.

Is heart rate response a reliable marker of adenosine-induced coronary hyperemia?

Introduction Growing evidence supports ischemia-guided management of chest pain, with invasive and non-invasive tests reliant upon achieving adenosine-induced coronary hyperemia (defined as increased blood flow to an organ's perfusion bed). In the non-invasive setting, surrogate markers of hyperemia, such as increases in heart rate, are often used, despite not being formally validated. We tested whether heart rate and other non-invasive indices are reliable markers of coronary hyperemia. Methods The first part involved Doppler flow-based validation of the best pressure-wire markers of hyperemia in 53 patients. Subsequently, using these validated pressure-derived parameters, 265 pressure-wire traces were analysed to determine whether heart rate and other non-invasive parameters correlated with hyperemia. Results In the flow derivation cohort, the best determinant of hyperemia came from having 2 out of 3 of: (1) Ventriculisation of the distal pressure waveform, (2) disappearance of distal dicrotic pressure notch, (3) separation of mean aortic and distal pressures. Within the 244 patients demonstrating hyperemia, non-invasive markers of hyperemia, such as change in heart rate (p = 0.77), blood pressure (p = 0.60) and rate-pressure product (p = 0.86), were poor correlates of coronary hyperemia, with only 37.3% demonstrating a ≥ 10% increase in heart rate that is commonly used to adjudge adenosine-induced hyperemia in the non-invasive setting. Conclusions We demonstrate, by correlation with Doppler-flow data, a validated method of identifying coronary hyperemia within the catheter laboratory using the pressure-wire. We subsequently show that non-invasive parameters, such as heart rate change, are poor predictors of coronary hyperemia during stress imaging protocols that rely upon achieving adenosine-induced hyperemia.