RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is an etiology for angina with non-obstructive coronary disease. However, the initial adoption of CMD assessment, whether planned or conducted ad hoc, is limited. We characterize planned and ad hoc CMD assessments and highlight evolving trends of a CMD referral center. METHODS: We analyzed outpatient data from the Coronary Microvascular Disease Registry from 2021 to 2023. Patients were categorized into planned or ad hoc CMD assessment groups, and baseline characteristics, hospital stay, medications, and physiological measurements were compared. Secondary analysis evaluated a CMD referral center's evolution. RESULTS: Of 101 included outpatients, 67.3 % underwent ad hoc procedures and 32.7 % planned procedures. Average age was 63.1 ± 10.1 years. The planned procedure group was 87.9 % female, and the ad hoc procedure group was 51.5 % female. There were no significant differences in index of microvascular resistance or coronary flow reserve between groups. Hospital stay duration was <1 day for both groups, and neither reported complications. Ad hoc patients were more frequently prescribed aspirin before (64.7 % vs. 36.4 %, p = 0.007) and after the procedure (66.2 % vs. 39.4 %, p = 0.01). CMD rates were higher for planned procedures (30.3 % vs. 10.3 %, p = 0.01). We observed that CMD referral centers have more planned procedures and a higher rate of positive results over time. CONCLUSION: CMD referral centers' planned procedures, and subsequent positive cases, increased over time. This emphasizes the importance of planned procedures, appropriate patient selection, and increased awareness of CMD among healthcare providers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Coronary Microvascular Disease (CMD) Registry, NCT05960474, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05960474.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Coronary functional testing to formally diagnose coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) reduces cardiovascular events and alleviates angina. This study aims to investigate the extensive and complex journey that patients with CMD undergo, from the onset of chest pain to eventual diagnosis. METHODS: Data from the Coronary Microvascular Disease Registry (CMDR) were analyzed, including information on the date of first documentation of chest pain, number of non-invasive and invasive tests the patient underwent, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. In addition, we estimated the total cost per patient. A total of 61 patients with CMD diagnosis were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Most patients in our cohort were older than 50 years of age. The median time from initial chest pain symptoms to diagnosis was 0.62 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.06-2.96) years. During this period, patients visited the emergency department a median of 1.0 (IQR: 0.0-2.0) times. Diagnostic tests included 3.0 (IQR: 2.0-6.0) electrocardiograms, 3.0 (IQR: 0.0-6.0) high-sensitivity troponin tests, and 1.0 (IQR: 1.0-2.0) echocardiograms. Prior to diagnosis of CMD, 13 (21.3 %) patients had left heart catheterization without coronary functional testing. Non-invasive testing for ischemia was conducted in 43 (70.5 %) patients. Alternative non-cardiac diagnoses were given to 11 (18.0 %) patients during the diagnostic process, with referrals made to gastroenterology for 16 (26.2 %) and pulmonology for 10 (16.4 %) patients. The cost was almost $2000/patient. CONCLUSION: Timely identification of CMD offers promising opportunities for prompt symptom alleviation, accompanied by reduced visits to the emergency department, cardiovascular testing, invasive medical procedures, and consequently reduced healthcare expenses.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Full adoption of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) assessment faces challenges due to its invasive nature and concerns about prolonged procedure time and increased contrast and/or radiation exposure. We compared procedural aspects of CMD invasive assessment to diagnostic left heart catheterization (DLHC) in patients with chest pain who were not found to have obstructive coronary artery disease. METHODS: A total of 227 patients in the Coronary Microvascular Disease Registry were compared to 1592 patients who underwent DLHC from August 2021 to November 2023. The two cohorts were compared using propensity-score matching; primary outcomes were fluoroscopy time and total contrast use. RESULTS: The participants' mean age was 64.1 ± 12.6 years. CMD-assessed patients were more likely to be female (66.5% vs. 45.2%, p < 0.001) and have hypertension (80.2% vs. 44.5%, p < 0.001), history of stroke (11.9% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.002), and history of myocardial infarction (20.3% vs. 7.7%, p < 0.001). CMD assessment was safe, without any reported adverse outcomes. A propensity-matched analysis showed that patients who underwent CMD assessment had slightly higher median contrast exposure (50 vs. 40 mL, p < 0.001), and slightly longer fluoroscopy time (6.9 vs. 4.7 min, p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in radiation dose (209.3 vs. 219 mGy, p = 0.58) and overall procedure time (31 vs. 29 min, p = 0.37). CONCLUSION: Compared to DLHC, CMD assessment is safe and requires only slightly additional contrast use (10 mL) and slightly longer fluoroscopy time (2 min) without clinical implications. These findings emphasize the favorable safety and feasibility of invasive CMD assessment.