Angiographic Evaluation of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction in Patients with Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 528-533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Sucato ◽  
Salvatore Evola ◽  
Giuseppina Novo ◽  
Angela Sansone ◽  
Angelo Quagliana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Microvascular Dysfunction ◽  
Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure

scholarly journals Coronary microvascular dysfunction in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

2018 ◽  
Vol 314 (5) ◽  
pp. H1033-H1042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Dryer ◽  
Mark Gajjar ◽  
Nikhil Narang ◽  
Margaret Lee ◽  
Jonathan Paul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Coronary Flow ◽  
Prospective Observational Study ◽  
Microvascular Dysfunction ◽  
Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Control Subjects ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure

There are multiple proposed mechanisms for the pathophysiology of heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We hypothesized that coronary microvascular dysfunction is common in these patients. In a prospective, observational study, patients undergoing cardiac catheterization with HFpEF [left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction ≥ 50% and with clinical HF] were compared with similar patients without HFpEF. Patients with ≥50% stenosis were excluded, and coronary flow reserve (CFR) and the index of microvascular resistance (IMR) were measured after adenosine administration using a guidewire, with CFR ≤ 2 and IMR ≥ 23 being abnormal. Baseline characteristics and CFR and IMR were compared in 30 HFpEF patients and 14 control subjects. Compared with control subjects, HFpEF patients were older (65.4 ± 9.6 vs. 55.1 ± 3.1 yr, P < 0.01), had higher numbers of comorbidities (4.4 ± 1.5 vs. 2.6 ± 1.9, P = 0.002), had higher median B-type natriuretic peptide [161 (interquartile range: 75–511) pg/dl vs. 37 (interquartile range: 18.5–111) pg/dl, P < 0.01], and had higher LV end-diastolic pressure (17.8 ± 4.2 vs. 8.4 ± 4.2, P < 0.01). HFpEF patients had lower CFR (2.55 ± 1.60 vs. 3.84 ± 1.89, P = 0.024) and higher IMR (26.7 ± 10.3 vs. 19.7 ± 9.7 units, P = 0.037) than control subjects. Most (71.4%) control subjects had normal coronary physiology, whereas 36.7% of HFpEF patients had both abnormal CFR and IMR and another 36.7% had either abnormal CFR or IMR. In conclusion, this is the first study that has reported invasively determined CFR and IMR in HFpEF patients. We demonstrated the presence of four distinct coronary physiology groups in HFpEF patients. Investigation into the potential mechanisms for these findings is needed. NEW & NOTEWORTHY In this prospective observational study of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), we found that patients with HFpEF had more abnormalities of coronary flow and resistance than asymptomatic control patients, indicating that coronary microvascular dysfunction may play a role in the HFpEF disease process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document