Suppr超能文献

在有创性冠状动脉功能试验中,比较冠状动脉内乙酰胆碱输注与乙酰胆碱弹丸注射方案的诊断效果。

Comparison of the Diagnostic Yield of Intracoronary Acetylcholine Infusion and Acetylcholine Bolus Injection Protocols During Invasive Coronary Function Testing.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC Heart Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC Heart Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Am J Cardiol. 2024 Apr 15;217:49-58. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.01.038. Epub 2024 Feb 28.

Abstract

Coronary endothelial dysfunction (CED) and coronary artery spasm (CAS) are causes of angina with no obstructive coronary arteries in patients. Both can be diagnosed by invasive coronary function testing (ICFT) using acetylcholine (ACh). This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of a 3-minute ACh infusion as compared with a 1-minute ACh bolus injection protocol in testing CED and CAS. We evaluated 220 consecutive patients with angina and no obstructive coronary arteries who underwent ICFT using continuous Doppler flow measurements. Per protocol, 110 patients were tested using 3-minute infusion, and thereafter 110 patients using 1-minute bolus injections, because of a protocol change. CED was defined as a <50% increase in coronary blood flow or any epicardial vasoconstriction in reaction to low-dose ACh and CAS according to the Coronary Vasomotor Disorders International Study Group (COVADIS) criteria, both with and without T-wave abnormalities, in reaction to high dose ACh. The prevalence of CED was equal in both protocols (78% vs 79%, p = 0.869). Regarding the endotypes of CAS according to COVADIS, the equivocal endotype was diagnosed less often in the 3 vs 1-minute protocol (24% vs 44%, p = 0.004). Including T-wave abnormalities in the COVADIS criteria resulted in a similar diagnostic yield of both protocols. Hemodynamic changes from baseline to the low or high ACh doses were comparable between the protocols for each endotype. In conclusion, ICFT using 3-minute infusion or 1-minute bolus injections of ACh showed a similar diagnostic yield of CED. When using the COVADIS criteria, a difference in the equivocal diagnosis was observed. Including T-wave abnormalities as a diagnostic criterion reclassified equivocal test results into CAS and decreased this difference. For clinical practice, we recommend the inclusion of T-wave abnormalities as a diagnostic criterion for CAS and the 1-minute bolus protocol for practicality.

摘要

冠状动脉内皮功能障碍 (CED) 和冠状动脉痉挛 (CAS) 是导致无阻塞性冠状动脉疾病患者心绞痛的原因。这两种情况都可以通过使用乙酰胆碱 (ACh) 的侵入性冠状动脉功能测试 (ICFT) 来诊断。本研究旨在评估 3 分钟 ACh 输注与 1 分钟 ACh 推注方案在测试 CED 和 CAS 时的诊断效果。我们评估了 220 例连续的心绞痛且无阻塞性冠状动脉疾病患者,他们接受了连续多普勒血流测量的 ICFT。根据方案,由于方案变更,110 例患者使用 3 分钟输注进行测试,随后 110 例患者使用 1 分钟推注进行测试。CED 根据冠状动脉血管运动障碍国际研究小组 (COVADIS) 标准定义为低剂量 ACh 反应时冠状动脉血流增加 <50%或任何心外膜血管收缩,以及高剂量 ACh 反应时伴有或不伴有 T 波异常。两种方案的 CED 患病率相同 (78%与 79%,p = 0.869)。根据 COVADIS,针对 CAS 的终末类型,3 分钟与 1 分钟方案中不确定的终末类型诊断较少 (24%与 44%,p = 0.004)。将 T 波异常纳入 COVADIS 标准中,两种方案的诊断效果相似。对于每个终末类型,从基线到低剂量或高剂量 ACh 的血流动力学变化在两种方案中是可比的。总之,使用 3 分钟输注或 1 分钟 ACh 推注的 ICFT 显示 CED 的诊断效果相似。使用 COVADIS 标准时,观察到不确定诊断的差异。将 T 波异常作为诊断标准重新分类不确定的测试结果为 CAS,从而减少了这种差异。对于临床实践,我们建议将 T 波异常作为 CAS 的诊断标准,并采用 1 分钟推注方案的实用性。

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