Prevalence of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction and Epicardial Spasm in Patients With Angina and Myocardial Bridge

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background: Myocardial bridges (MB) are prevalent but not universally associated with angina. The mechanisms linking MB and angina are poorly defined. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of epicardial spasm, microvascular spasm, and/or endothelium-independent coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) in patients with MB which might explain symptoms. Methods: Patients with known MB and chest pain at the University of Chicago Medical Center between 2020-2023 were included. All patients underwent dobutamine testing with measurement of resting full-cycle ratio to determine hemodynamic significance (resting full-cycle ratio ≤0.76). Endothelium-independent CMD was defined as coronary flow reserve <2.0 or index of microvascular resistance ≥25 on adenosine testing. Microvascular spasm was defined as chest pain and electrocardiogram changes with nonischemic fractional flow reserve with acetylcholine. Epicardial spasm was defined as dynamic stenosis of >90% of the epicardial vessel or ischemic fractional flow reserve (≤0.8) with acetylcholine. Results: A total of 30 patients (mean age, 47 ± 10 years; 60% female) with MB were studied. Endothelium-independent CMD, microvascular spasm, and epicardial spasm occurred commonly in 60%, 29%, and 37% of patients respectively, with 77% having at least one abnormality. The MB was hemodynamically significant in 47% of patients, and the prevalence of these coexisting conditions was not affected by hemodynamic significance. Conclusions: Epicardial spasm, microvascular spasm, and endothelium-independent CMD are prevalent in patients presenting with known MB and chest pain irrespective of the hemodynamic significance of the bridge. Invasive coronary function testing may play an important role in uncovering alternative explanations for angina in patients with known MB.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.