Department of Medicine, Jacobi Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Jun 21;79(24):2367-2378. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.03.385.
Heterogeneity in diagnostic criteria and provocation protocols has posed challenges in understanding the safety of coronary provocation testing with intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) for the contemporary diagnosis of epicardial and microvascular spasm.
We examined the safety of testing and subgroup differences in procedural risks based on ethnicity, diagnostic criteria, and provocation protocols.
PubMed and Embase were searched in November 2021 to identify original articles reporting procedural complications associated with intracoronary ACh administration. The primary outcome was the pooled estimate of the incidence of major complications including death, myocardial infarction, ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, and shock.
A total of 16 studies with 12,585 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled estimate of the incidence of major complications was 0.5% (95% CI: 0.0%-1.3%) without any reports of death. Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed that the pooled incidence of major complications was significantly higher in the studies that followed the contemporary diagnosis criteria for epicardial spasm defined as ≥90% diameter reduction (1.0%; 95% CI: 0.3%-2.0%) but significantly lower in Western populations (0.0%; 95% CI: 0.0%-0.45%). The rate of positive epicardial spasm and the incidence of major complications were similar between provocation protocols using the maximum ACh doses of 100 μg and 200 μg.
Intracoronary ACh administration for the contemporary diagnosis of epicardial and microvascular spasm is a safe procedure. Moreover, excellent safety records are observed in Western populations primarily presenting with myocardial ischemia and/or infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries. This study will help standardize ACh testing to improve clinical diagnosis and ensure procedural safety.
由于诊断标准和激发方案的异质性,使得理解经冠状动脉内乙酰胆碱(ACh)激发试验诊断心外膜和微血管痉挛的安全性变得具有挑战性。
我们根据种族、诊断标准和激发方案,研究了该试验的安全性和不同亚组间的操作风险差异。
于 2021 年 11 月检索 PubMed 和 Embase,以识别报告与冠状动脉内 ACh 给药相关的操作并发症的原始文章。主要结局是主要并发症(包括死亡、心肌梗死、室性心动过速/颤动和休克)发生率的汇总估计值。
共纳入 16 项研究,包含 12585 例患者。主要并发症的总合并发生率为 0.5%(95%CI:0.0%-1.3%),无死亡报告。探索性亚组分析显示,采用当代心外膜痉挛诊断标准(定义为≥90%的直径减少)的研究中,主要并发症的合并发生率明显更高(1.0%;95%CI:0.3%-2.0%),而西方人群中明显更低(0.0%;95%CI:0.0%-0.45%)。使用最大 ACh 剂量为 100μg 和 200μg 的激发方案时,阳性心外膜痉挛率和主要并发症发生率相似。
目前诊断心外膜和微血管痉挛时,经冠状动脉内给予 ACh 是一种安全的方法。此外,在主要表现为心肌缺血和/或非阻塞性冠状动脉梗死的西方人群中,观察到了极佳的安全性记录。本研究将有助于标准化 ACh 测试,以改善临床诊断并确保操作安全。