Suppr超能文献

冠状动脉内乙酰胆碱与麦角新碱激发试验中激发痉挛的发生率及形态差异:关于补充使用的建议

Differential incidence and morphology of provoked spasm between intracoronary acetylcholine and ergonovine testing: recommendation of supplementary use.

作者信息

Sueda Shozo, Fujimoto Kaori, Sasaki Yasuhiro, Sakaue Tomoki, Yoshii Toyofumi, Habara Hirokazu, Kohno Hiroaki

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Ehime Niihama Prefectural Hospital, Hongou 3 choume 1-1, Niihama City, Ehime Prefecture, 792-0042, Japan.

Department of Cardiology, Tsukazaki Hospital, Himeji, Japan.

出版信息

Heart Vessels. 2019 May;34(5):745-754. doi: 10.1007/s00380-018-1299-x. Epub 2018 Nov 24.

Abstract

When cardiologists diagnose patients with coronary spastic angina, Japanese Circulation Society (JCS) guidelines recommend the intracoronary injection of acetylcholine (ACh) and ergonovine (ER) as class I. However, the pharmacological difference between ACh and ER is controversial in the clinic. We performed both ACh and ER tests in the same 528 patients during 26 years. We investigated the provoked spasm configuration, spasm site, and clinical characteristics of provoked spasm between ACh and ER, retrospectively. We defined positive spasm as ≥90% luminal narrowing. Provoked positive spasm was observed in 161 right coronary arteries (RCA) including 83 ACh just positive, 35 ER just positive, and 43 both positive. In contrast, positive spasm was documented in 172 left coronary arteries (LCA) including 94 ACh just positive, 28 ER just positive, and 50 both positive. ACh provoked spasm more distally and diffusely, while ER induced spasm more proximally and totally or focally in the RCA. In the LCA, ACh provoked spasm more proximally, whereas ER induced spasm more distally. ER testing after the negative ACh tests of RCA and LCA documented new positive spasms in 10.3% (35/340) and 7.4% (28/376), respectively. Coronary artery trees may each have a sensitive receptor on each segment. We recommend the supplementary use of ACh and ER to document coronary artery spasm in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

摘要

当心脏病专家诊断患者患有冠状动脉痉挛性心绞痛时,日本循环学会(JCS)指南将冠状动脉内注射乙酰胆碱(ACh)和麦角新碱(ER)推荐为I类方法。然而,ACh和ER之间的药理学差异在临床上存在争议。我们在26年期间对528例患者同时进行了ACh和ER测试。我们回顾性研究了ACh和ER诱发的痉挛形态、痉挛部位以及诱发痉挛的临床特征。我们将阳性痉挛定义为管腔狭窄≥90%。在161支右冠状动脉(RCA)中观察到诱发的阳性痉挛,其中83支仅ACh阳性,35支仅ER阳性,43支两者均阳性。相比之下,在172支左冠状动脉(LCA)中记录到阳性痉挛,其中94支仅ACh阳性,28支仅ER阳性,50支两者均阳性。在RCA中,ACh诱发的痉挛更偏向远端且范围更广,而ER诱发的痉挛更靠近近端且呈完全或局灶性。在LCA中,ACh诱发的痉挛更靠近近端,而ER诱发的痉挛更偏向远端。RCA和LCA的ACh测试为阴性后进行的ER测试分别在10.3%(35/340)和7.4%(28/376)的病例中记录到新的阳性痉挛。冠状动脉树的每个节段可能都有一个敏感受体。我们建议在心脏导管实验室中补充使用ACh和ER来记录冠状动脉痉挛。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验