Reriani Martin, Sara Jaskanwal D, Flammer Andreas J, Gulati Rajiv, Li Jing, Rihal Charanjit, Lennon Ryan, Lerman Lilach O, Lerman Amir
Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Coron Artery Dis. 2016 May;27(3):213-20. doi: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000347.
Endothelial dysfunction is regarded as the early stage of atherosclerosis and is associated with cardiovascular (CV) events. This study was designed to determine whether assessment of coronary endothelial function (CEF) is safe and can reclassify risk in patients with early coronary artery disease beyond the Framingham risk score (FRS).
CEF was evaluated using intracoronary acetylcholine in 470 patients who presented with chest pain and nonobstructive coronary artery disease. CV events were assessed after a median follow-up of 9.7 years. The association between CEF and CV events was examined, and the net reclassification improvement index (NRI) was used to compare the incremental contribution of CEF when added to FRS.The mean age was 53 years, and 68% of the patients were women with a median FRS of 8. Complications (coronary dissection) occurred in three (0.6%) and CV events in 61 (13%) patients. In univariate analysis, microvascular CEF [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-0.97, P=0.032] and epicardial CEF (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.90, P=0.01) were found to be significant predictors of CV events, whereas FRS was not (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85-1.26, P=0.61). When added to FRS, microvascular CEF correctly reclassified 11.3% of patients [NRI 0.11 (95% CI 0.019-0.21)], epicardial CEF correctly reclassified 12.1% of patients [NRI 0.12 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.26)], and the combined microvascular and epicardial CEF correctly reclassified 22.8% of patients [NRI 0.23 (95% CI 0.08-0.37)].
CEF testing is safe and adds value to the FRS, with superior discrimination and risk stratification compared with FRS alone in patients presenting with chest pain or suspected ischemia.
内皮功能障碍被视为动脉粥样硬化的早期阶段,与心血管(CV)事件相关。本研究旨在确定评估冠状动脉内皮功能(CEF)是否安全,以及能否在弗明汉风险评分(FRS)之外对早期冠状动脉疾病患者的风险进行重新分类。
对470例出现胸痛且冠状动脉无阻塞性病变的患者,采用冠状动脉内注射乙酰胆碱评估CEF。在中位随访9.7年后评估CV事件。检查CEF与CV事件之间的关联,并使用净重新分类改善指数(NRI)比较将CEF添加到FRS时的增量贡献。平均年龄为53岁,68%的患者为女性,中位FRS为8。3例(0.6%)出现并发症(冠状动脉夹层),61例(13%)患者发生CV事件。在单因素分析中,发现微血管CEF[风险比(HR)0.85,95%置信区间(CI)0.72 - 0.97,P = 0.032]和心外膜CEF(HR 0.73,95%CI 0.59 - 0.90,P = 0.01)是CV事件的显著预测因素,而FRS不是(HR 1.05,95%CI 0.85 - 1.26,P = 0.61)。当添加到FRS时,微血管CEF正确地对11.3%的患者进行了重新分类[NRI 0.11(95%CI 0.019 - 0.21)],心外膜CEF正确地对12.1%的患者进行了重新分类[NRI 0.12(95%CI -0.02至0.26)],微血管和心外膜CEF联合正确地对22.8%的患者进行了重新分类[NRI 0.23(95%CI 0.08 - 0.37)]。
CEF检测是安全的,并且为FRS增加了价值,与单独使用FRS相比,在出现胸痛或疑似缺血的患者中具有更好的鉴别能力和风险分层能力。