RESUMO
Introduction: A substantial proportion of patients with chronic coronary syndromes suffer from angina even after medical treatment and revascularization. Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is discussed as a potential mechanism. Aim: To assess angina status in patients with chronic coronary syndromes undergoing functional assessment of coronary circulation regarding the presence of coronary microcirculatory dysfunction. Material and methods: The study included 101 consecutive patients referred for coronary angiography requiring functional stenosis assessment, with median age of 66 years, 74% male, diagnosed or treated for dyslipidemia (91%) and diabetes type 2 (42%), 20% with a history of prior non-ST myocardial infarction. Fractional flow reserve (FFR), coronary flow reserve (CFR), resistive reserve ratio (RRR), and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) were measured. The diagnosis of CMD was defined by either IMR ≥ 25 units or CFR ≤ 2.0 in case of no significant stenosis. A change of one CCS class over 24 months follow-up was considered clinically significant. Results: In patients without CMD diagnosis, there was a significant decrease in angina intensity (p < 0.001). Lack of angina improvement was associated with lower median RRR (2.30 (1.70, 3.30) vs. 3.05 (2.08, 4.10), p = 0.004) and lower median CFR (1.90 (1.40, 2.50) vs. 2.30 (IQR: 1.60, 3.00), p = 0.021), as compared to patients with angina improvement. Conclusions: The presence of CMD is a risk factor for no angina improvement. Impaired coronary resistive reserve ratio and lower microvascular reactivity may be one of the pathomechanisms leading to the lack of angina improvement in patients with chronic coronary syndromes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (DM) is a common comorbidity associated with cardiovascular disease, especially when poor glucose control is present. Extracardiac microcirculatory complications prevalence is well documented, however coronary microcirculatory dysfunction (CMD) seem to be underreported in this group. METHODS: The present study analyzed coronary physiology measurements (coronary flow reserve [CFR], index of microcirculatory resistance [IMR], resistance reserve ratio [RRR]) in 47 diabetic patients (21 subjects with poor glycemia control defined as fasting glucose levels > 7.2 mmol/L and 26 with normal fasting glucose), and compared to 54 non-diabetic controls, who had undergone coronary angiography due to symptoms of chronic coronary syndrome. The median age of patients was 65.5 [59.0; 73.0] years old, 74% male, similar in terms of cardiovascular risk factors and prior myocardial infarction. Insulin was used by 19% of diabetic patients with poor glucose control and by 15% of those with DM and low fasting glucose. RESULTS: Prevalence of CMD was 38% in poor glycemia control patients, 27% in DM-patients with proper glucose control and 31% of non-diabetics. Median CFR values were the lowest in poor DM control patients compared to both, normal fasting glucose (1.75 [1.37; 2.32] vs. 2.30 [1.75; 2.85], p = 0.026) and to non-diabetics (1.75 [1.37; 2.32] vs. 2.15 [1.50; 2.95], p = 0.045). Levels of IMR, RRR and MRR did not differ significantly between compared groups (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Poor glycemia control in type 2 DM might be associated with a higher prevalence of CMD driven by decreased coronary flow reserve, however, further research in larger groups of patients should be performed to confirm this observation.
RESUMO
Background: Resting full-cycle ratio (RFR) is an alternative to fractional flow reserve (FFR) for the evaluation of borderline coronary artery lesions. Although FFR and RFR results are discordant in some cases, factors associated with the discordance remain unclear. The role of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is discussed as a potential mechanism to explain these discrepancies. Aim: The study aimed to assess concordance between RFR and FFR in a real-life cohort from a high-volume center regarding the role of CMD. Methods: Consecutive patients with borderline coronary lesions undergoing coronary functional testing for chronic coronary syndromes were included in the study. Measurements of RFR and FFR were performed alongside additional coronary flow reserve (CFR), resistance reserve ratio (RRR), and an index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) measurements. CMD was defined according to the current guideline by either IMR ≥25 or CFR ≤2.0 in vessels with no significant stenosis. Results: Measurements were performed in 157 coronary arteries, in 101 patients, with a median age of 66 y., 74% male, with prior history of arterial hypertension (96%), dyslipidaemia (91%), and diabetes (40%). The median value of vessel diameter stenosis was 45% according to QCA.Overall, FFR and RFR values were significantly correlated (r = 0.66, p < 0.001), where positive FFR/negative RFR and negative FFR/positive RFR were observed in 6 (3.8%) and 38 (24.2%) of 157 vessels. The RFR/FFR discrepancy was present in 44 (28%) of measurements. CMD was confirmed in 28 (64%) of vessels with discrepant RFR/FFR and in 46 (41%) of vessels with concordant results (p = 0.01). In discordant RFR/FFR vessels, as compared to concordant ones, significantly lower values of CFR [median 1.95 (IQR: 1.37, 2.30) vs. 2.10 (IQR: 1.50, 3.00), p = 0.030] and RRR [median 2.50 (IQR: 1.60, 3.10) vs. 2.90 IQR (1.90, 3.90), p = 0.048] were observed.Main predictors of RFR/FFR discrepancy in a univariate regression analysis were: higher age of patients [OR = 1.06 (1.01; 1.10), p = 0.010], presence of CMD [OR = 2.51 (1.23; 5.25), p = 0.012], lower CFR [OR = 1.64 (1.12; 2.56), p = 0.018], and lower RRR values [OR = 1.35 (95% CI: 1.03; 1.83), p = 0.038]. Conclusion: In discrepant RFR/FFR vessels, CMD is more prevalent than in concordant RFR/FFR measurements, which can be driven by lower CFR or RRR values. Further research is needed to confirm this observation.
