Abnormal epicardial coronary vasomotor reactivity is associated with altered outcomes

Hélène Aélion; Fabien Picard; Arnaud Jégou; Philippe Allouch; Olivier Varenne

doi:10.1016/j.acvd.2022.10.006

Abnormal epicardial coronary vasomotor reactivity is associated with altered outcomes

Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2023 Jan;116(1):33-40. doi: 10.1016/j.acvd.2022.10.006. Epub 2022 Dec 9.

Authors

Hélène Aélion¹, Fabien Picard², Arnaud Jégou³, Philippe Allouch³, Olivier Varenne⁴

Affiliations

¹ Cardiology Department, Cochin Hospital, AP-HP, 75014 Paris, France; Faculty of Medicine, University of Paris Cité, 75014 Paris, France.
² Cardiology Department, Cochin Hospital, AP-HP, 75014 Paris, France; Faculty of Medicine, University of Paris Cité, 75014 Paris, France; Paris Sudden Death Expertise Centre, 75015 Paris, France.
³ Cardiology Department, Cochin Hospital, AP-HP, 75014 Paris, France.
⁴ Cardiology Department, Cochin Hospital, AP-HP, 75014 Paris, France; Faculty of Medicine, University of Paris Cité, 75014 Paris, France; Paris Sudden Death Expertise Centre, 75015 Paris, France. Electronic address: olivier.varenne@aphp.fr.

PMID: 36526570
DOI: 10.1016/j.acvd.2022.10.006

Abstract

Background: The prevalence and significance of abnormal epicardial coronary vasomotor reactivity (ACVR) in patients with symptoms compatible with myocardial ischaemia remains ill-defined. Our diagnostic strategy is to perform a provocative test (PT) in every patient presenting with chest pain at rest, for whom coronary angiography does not reveal significant epicardial coronary artery disease (≥70% stenosis by visual assessment).

Aim: To evaluate such a strategy in terms of incidence of ACVR, PT safety and patient outcomes.

Methods: The present study was a retrospective observational study with a median clinical follow-up of 5years. The primary outcome was incidence of ACVR in patients with PT. Risk factors for ACVR and clinical follow-up were obtained, and the rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and coronary revascularization) was reported.

Results: ACVR was documented in 294 (12.4%) of the 2379 patients with PT, out of the 13,654 patients undergoing angiography. Patients with ACVR were more often female (43.9% vs. 30.0%; P<0.0001), current smokers (37.4% vs. 8.7%; P<0.0001) and had a suspected acute coronary syndrome (36.7% vs. 29.1%; P=0.005) at admittance compared with patients without ACVR. During clinical follow-up, MACCE occurred more frequently in patients with (9.8%) than in those without (3.7%) ACVR (hazard ratio [HR] 4.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.62-6.57; P<0.0001), including more myocardial infarctions (4.0% vs. 0.4%; HR 17.8, 95% CI 6.41-49.5; P<0.0001) and more myocardial revascularizations (6.1% vs. 1.1%; HR 9.36, 95% CI 4.67-18.74; P<0.0001) compared with patients with normal PT at baseline.

Conclusions: ACVR is frequent in patients with symptoms compatible with myocardial ischaemia at rest, with no significant coronary stenosis. PT is a safe strategy to identify a population at high risk of recurrent ischaemic events.

Keywords: Coronary spasm; Provocative test; Vasomotor reactivity.

Publication types

Observational Study

MeSH terms

Coronary Angiography
Coronary Artery Disease* / diagnostic imaging
Coronary Artery Disease* / therapy
Female
Humans
Myocardial Infarction*
Myocardial Ischemia*
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention*
Risk Factors
Treatment Outcome