Changlin Zhai1
Yunqing Chen
Liang Shen- 1Department of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, China
- 2Department of Infectious Diseases, Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, China
Non-obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), which is defined as coronary stenosis <50%, has been increasingly recognized as an emerging entity in clinical practice. Vasomotion abnormality and coronary microvascular dysfunction are two major mechanisms contributing to the occur of angina with non-obstructive CAD. Although routine coronary functional assessment is limited due to several disadvantages, functional evaluation can help to understand the pathophysiological mechanism and/or to exclude specific etiologies. In this review, we summarized the potential mechanisms involved in ischemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA) and myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA), the two major form of non-obstructive CAD. Additionally, we reviewed currently available functional assessment indices and their use in non-obstructive CAD. Furthermore, we speculated that novel technique combined anatomic and physiologic parameters might provide more individualized therapeutic choice for patients with non-obstructive CAD.
Introduction
Angina with non-obstructive coronary artery (defined as lesions with <50% stenosis) has been recognized as a frequent problem encountered in clinical practice (1, 2). It is reported that probably 60–70% of patients who underwent coronary angiography due to angina pectoris and evidence of myocardial ischemia do not have obstructive coronary disease (3–7), a condition recently termed ischemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA). Myocardial infarction (MI), the most serious form of coronary artery disease (CAD), might also occurred in coronary artery without obvious occlusion, which now named as myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) (8). Previous studies demonstrated that MINOCA can be found in 5–10% of all patients with MI (9–13).
Although increasing attention have been paid to non-obstructive CAD, the mechanisms are largely unknown, and the diagnosis might be underestimated in the real world. Therefore, it is crucial to identify non-obstructive CAD to provide appropriate management strategies. Coronary functional assessment has emerged as the “golden standard” to optimize the treatment of CAD (14). Besides, coronary functional assessment can identify the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms in non-obstructive CAD. In this review, we discussed potential mechanisms involved in two widely accepted form of non-obstructive CAD, MINOCA and INOCA, as well as coronary physiologic assessment techniques and their application in non-obstructive CAD.
Definition of MINOCA and INOCA
MINOCA is a syndrome characterized by clinical signs of myocardial infarction with no remarkable stenosis (≥50%) of coronary artery on angiography. According to the latest scientific statement published by the AHA, the diagnosis of MINOCA should meet the following criteria: (1) AMI meeting the “Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction” criteria; (2) no artery stenosis ≥50% on coronary angiography in any major epicardial vessel; (3) no specific alternate diagnosis for the acute clinical presentation (8).
INOCA is a condition defined as cardiac ischemia in the absence of obvious obstruction of epicardial coronary artery diameter reduction (≥50%) by coronary angiography. Accordingly, ACC published a uniform definition of INOCA as follows: (1) persistent (several weeks or longer) symptoms suggesting ischemic heart disease; (2) objective evidence of myocardial ischemia from ECG or other cardiac imaging test, such as echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, nuclear imaging, or spectroscopy; (3) absence of flow-limiting obstruction by coronary angiography as defined by epicardial coronary artery stenosis ≥50% or fractional flow reserve <0.8 (5). It is worthy to note that the diagnosis of INOCA can be established when other myocardial ischemia mechanisms such as cardiomyopathy, aortic stenosis, cardiac infiltrative diseases, systemic inflammatory and autoimmune disease, primary metabolic abnormalities and myocardial bridging are excluded (4).
Pathophysiology of MINOCA and INOCA
The potential underlying pathophysiological mechanisms for MINOCA include: (1) atherosclerotic causes of myocardial necrosis, including plaque rupture, plaque erosion, and calcific nodules, collectively referred to as plaque disruption; (2) non-atherosclerotic causes, such as epicardial coronary vasospasm, coronary microvascular dysfunction, coronary embolism/thrombosis, and spontaneous coronary artery dissection (8, 15).
Generally, plaque disruption cannot be accurately determined or distinguished by coronary angiography, it can only be definitively diagnosed with optical coherence tomography (OCT) or, to a lesser extent, with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) (16–18). Nowadays, OCT has been an essential diagnostic modality for MINOCA (19). OCT can identify the hallmark of a culprit lesion, including plaque disruption and thrombus. Plaque rupture is characterized by the presence of fibrous cap discontinuity with a cavity formation within the plaque, which often caused by inflammation and occurred in thin fibrous cap (<65 μm) (20, 21). Plaque erosion is characterized by the presence of attached thrombus overlying an intact and visualized plaque, and the thrombus is always regarded as “white thrombus” (22). Calcified nodule is defined as signal or multiple regions of calcium that protrudes into the arterial lumen, with fibrous cap disruption forming sharp, protruding edges, which is less common than plaque rupture or erosion in patients with acute coronary syndrome (16, 23). As mentioned above, plaque disruption can lead to thrombus formation, which might cause distal embolization and coronary spasm, moreover, inflammation might directly contribute to the necrosis of cardiomyocyte (24) and stimulate coronary spasm (25) or microvascular dysfunction (26) as well, eventually contribute to the development of MINOCA.
Coronary artery spasm refers to intense constriction (>90%) of an epicardial coronary artery and/or microvascular, leading to limited myocardial blood flow (27). Coronary spasm is firstly reported in patients with obstructive CAD (28), however, it is widely occurred in patient with non-obstructive coronaries (29). It is primarily presented as unstable angina with dynamic ST-segment elevation pattern on ECG, while prolonged spasm can also result in myocardial infarction.
Microvascular dysfunction is defined as coronary microvascular (vessels <0.5 mm diameter) structural remodeling or functional dysregulation with reduced myocardial perfusion, which is characterize by impaired coronary flow reserve and abnormal coronary microvascular resistance indices (30). Structural microvascular dysfunction is associated with a decrease of microvascular conductance and impaired oxygen delivery capacity. The decreased microvascular conductance is due to the remodeling of small-sized coronary arterioles and the impaired oxygen delivery is the result of loss of myocardial capillary density (31). In contrast, functional microvascular dysfunction usually represents an impaired flow-mediated vasodilation, which can be divided into endothelium-dependent or-independent. Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is prevalent in a broad spectrum of cardiovascular diseases, and it can be categorized into CMD without atherosclerosis, CMD with non-obstructive atherosclerosis and CMD with obstructive atherosclerosis. In patients with non-obstructive atherosclerosis, CMD might occur more frequently in patients with cardiometabolic disease (i.e., metabolic syndrome, obesity, and diabetes mellitus), chronic kidney disease, and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and is disproportionately female (32, 33). Previous studies showed microvascular dysfunction in patients with MINOCA, however, whether it is the reason of myocardial infarction or just as the consequence of MI has not been fully elucidated. Further researches are needed to further investigate the role of microvascular dysfunction in MINOCA.
Coronary embolism/thrombosis is defined as coronary artery obstruction caused by embolus and/or thrombus, which interrupt the oxygen supply to myocardial and cause myocardial infarction (34, 35). In some cases, spontaneous thrombolysis of complete thrombosis might occur and leading to the occlusion of microvascular. Coronary embolism/thrombosis can also be the result of hypercoagulable disorders, such as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) (36) and antiphospholipid syndrome (37).
Spontaneous coronary artery dissection is a non-atherosclerotic, non-traumatic cause of acute coronary event with the development of hematoma within the tunica media (38). It has emerged as an important cause of MI, particularly among younger women (39). So far, the precise mechanism of SCAD is not entirely known and the exact incidence of SCAD might be underestimated. Similar to plaque disruption, the diagnosis of SCAD mostly depends on intravascular imaging such as IVUS and OCT (40–42).
Recently, myocardial bridging, a congenital coronary anomaly, has also been investigated and is emerging as an important player in determining MINOCA (43). In patients with MINOCA, myocardial bridging is an independent predictor of positive acetylcholine (Ach) test and the coexistence of myocardial bridging and a positive Ach test in frequent, indicating a role for coronary spasm superimposed to myocardial bridging in MINOCA patients (44).
Despite many causes of MINOCA have been investigated, the exact mechanisms of MINOCA is largely unknown. We speculate that inflammation plays a vital role during MINOCA. As we known, inflammation is a major trigger of plaque rupture (45), inflammation reaction might not limit to the ruptured plaque, myocardium adjacent to the plaque or even the whole heart may be in an inflammatory state, which results in the death of cardiomyocytes. Moreover, spontaneous thrombolysis, an established cause of MINOCA, might lead to ischemia/reperfusion injury, which further promotes the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), inflammation and finally cell death (ie, necrosis, apoptosis or ferroptosis) (46, 47), which might explain the occurrence of myocardial infarction with no obvious obstruction of coronary artery.
INOCA shares some similar pathophysiologic mechanisms with MINOCA. The most common mechanisms of INOCA are microvascular dysfunction and epicardial coronary artery spasm (4). The common risk factors of INOCA including female, smoking, obese, hypertension and diabetes. Unlike MINOCA, no microcirculatory occlusion or persistent coronary spasm might be observed in the context of INOCA.
Coronary functional assessment methods
Numerous techniques for the assessment of coronary physiologic function have been developed. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is most widely accepted index for the physiological function evaluation of coronary disease, which is defined as the ratio between mean distal pressure and mean aortic pressure at the stage of maximal hyperemia typically stimulated by adenosine. Regadenoson, a selective A2a receptor agonist, has also been demonstrated as a viable alternative to intravenous adenosine for measuring FFR (48–50). FFR ≤ 0.80 is recommended as the cut-off value for the diagnosis of functionally relevant coronary disease (51). Although FFR is recommended as a class Ia indication in myocardial revascularization among chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) patients (14), the utilize of FFR is relatively limited in the real world mainly due to prolonged procedural time, expensive cost and the need of hyperemic agents. Hence, a number of alternative methods have been developed and used in clinical practice. Among which, submaximal hyperemic physiological indices (e.g., contrast-based FFR) and resting indices, such as instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), resting full-cycle ratio (RFR), diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) have been utilized in clinical trials or practice due to their advantage of no hyperemic drugs needed (52, 53). iFR is the ratio of mean distal pressure and mean aortic pressure during the period of diastolic wave-free, recent studies have demonstrated that iFR is non-inferior to FFR in terms of clinical outcomes in patients with CAD, the recommended cut-off value of iFR is 0.89 (54, 55). RFR and dPR are another two adenosine-free functional assessment methods, which is calculated as the minimal distal pressure with reference to the aortic pressure during five entire cardiac cycles, and as an averaged Pd/Pa ratio during a part or the entire diastolic period without selection of a wave-free period respectively. Both methods have been investigated and revealed a significant correlation with iFR (56, 57), indicating their promising value in the treatment of CAD patients. Contrast-based FFR (cFFR) is another valuable adenosine-free index, which is measured as the mean distal coronary pressure divided by aortic or proximal coronary pressure during submaximal hyperemia with intracoronary injection of contrast. Previous studies had shown that cFFR provided better diagnostic performance than Pd/Pa or iFR for predicting FFR (58, 59).
Nevertheless, prolonged procedural time, extra cost and inevitable wire-related complications remain big challenges to the routine use of these resting functional assessments. Therefore, quantitative flow ratio (QFR) was discovered and almost perfect successfully settled these limitations. QFR is a novel, wireless, vasodilator-free coronary functional assessment method based on computational modeling of 3-dimensional (3D) quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) frame counts (60). A plenty of clinical trials have illustrated the clinical feasible and diagnostic accuracy comparable to FFR (60–63). Most recently, the results of FAVOR III China, a multicenter, blinded, randomized, sham-controlled trial, showed that compared with angiography guidance, a QFR-guided strategy improve 1-year clinical outcomes among patients undergoing PCI (64). It is believed that QFR would be a promising tool to guide the clinical practice in patients with CAD.
Similar to QFR, coronary angiography-derived FFR (FFRangio), another method to calculate FFR just depends on angiogram with no coronary pressure wire of hyperemic agent, has also been shown to have a high diagnostic performance compared with conventional FFR (65, 66).
As discussed above, functional assessment shed light on culprit lesions, while intracoronary imaging, including OCT and IVUS, optimize the intervention strategy. Previous studies have shown that both OCT- and IVUS-guided PCI can reduce target vessel failure compared with angio-guided PCI (67, 68). Hence, it would be plausible to combine functional assessment technology with intracoronary imaging to maximize the benefit of PCI. Excitingly, OCT-derived FFR (OFR, an OCT-based method for the functional assessment of coronary stenosis based on computational fluid dynamics) has been developed and investigated in clinical trials, and the results showed that OFR can be a feasible and alternative method for physiology assessment as well as coronary morphology (69–71). Ding et al. (72) demonstrated that post-PCI OFR showed good diagnostic concordance with post-PCI FFR. Recently, IVUS-derived FFR (UFR) was developed as well, and also was found to have a good agreement and strong correlation with FFR, suggesting it is a valuable method to identify myocardial ischemia (73, 74). Moreover, coronary CT-derived FFR (FFRCT), a non-invasive evaluation of CAD that provides a combined anatomic and physiologic assessment, has emerged as an alternative method to FFR for decision-making and identification of targets for revascularization in patients with extensive CAD (14).
Compared with epicardial coronary arteries, coronary microvascular might play a more crucial role in the physiology of heart. Nowadays, several methods have been established for the assessment of microvascular function (75). Coronary flow reserve (CFR) is one of the methods to evaluate the function of microcirculation. CFR is the ratio of vasoactive regents (e.g., adenosine) stimulated-hyperemic blood flow divided by resting blood flow. It can be calculated using thermodilution or Doppler flow velocity (76). The generally acknowledged cut-off value of CFR is 2.0 or 2.5 depending on methodology, numerous studies have shown that there is a close association between low CFR and poor prognosis (77–79).
CFR assessment can be divided into an endothelium-independent component and endothelium-dependent coronary flow. After non-endothelium-dependent CFR assessment acquired via adenosine administration, the endothelium-dependent epicardial diameter and microvascular should be evaluated with the injection of acetylcholine (Ach), also known as provocation test. A positive provocation test should include three criteria: angina symptoms, ischemic ECG changes and severe vasoconstriction (>90%) of the epicardial vessel (80). In some cases, angina might occur in the absence of angiographically evident spasm, even without ST-segment changes, which might support the diagnosis of microvascular angina.
However, CFR cannot specifically reflect the microvascular function when there is a significant epicardial disease, therefore, it is reasonable to use the index of microvascular resistance (IMR) to correctly assess the function of microvascular. IMR is calculated as the product of distal coronary pressure at maximal hyperemia multiplied by the hyperemic mean transit time (81). IMR ≥ 25 is regarded as the cut-off value of microvascular dysfunction (82). According to the 2019 ESC guideline for CCS, in patients either angiographically normal or have moderate stenosis with preserved iFR/FFR, CFR and/or IMR are recommended as IIa indication (14). Hyperemic myocardial velocity resistance (HMR), a Doppler-based index, calculated by dividing intracoronary pressure by hyperemic flow velocity, also can reflect the microvascular function. HMR > 1.9 is regarded as the cut-off to predict microvascular angina (83).
Regardless, some disadvantages exist in both methods, such as prolonged procedural time, extra medical cost, stable injection technology needed and hyperemic medicine required, which are similar to traditionally epicardial coronary physiology evaluation devices. As a result, continuous intracoronary thermodilution and angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (angio-IMR) have been discovered to overcome these limitations. Continuous intracoronary thermodilution is a novel technique to quantify absolute coronary flow (Q) and resistance (R) with a continuous infusion of saline to instead adenosine (84). Briefly, Q is calculated as 1.08 × (Ti/T) × Qi, R is calculated as Pd/Q. Ti stands for the temperature of the infused saline, while T is the temperature of the mixture of blood and saline, Qi is pre-specified flow rate (20 ml/min in LAD and LCX, 15 ml/min in RCA), Pd is the distal pressure of the target coronary. It has been demonstrated that continuous thermodilution is feasible and safe in patient with INOCA (85), but the exact diagnostic and prognostic value and the optima cut-off value need to be further determined.
Angio-IMR is another novel microcirculatory functional assessment technique, which does not need pressure wire, hyperemic medicine and thermodilution method (86). It is defined as estimated Pahyp× [L/(κ × Vdiastole)], Pdhyp is the mean pressure at the distal position when maximal hyperemia, L represents the length from the inlet to the distal position, Vdiastole is the mean flow velocity at the distal position at diastole. Recently, angio-IMR has been investigated in CAD (87) and patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infraction (STEMI) (88), and the results showed that angio-IMR has a high correlation with wire-derived IMR and high accuracy to predict microvascular dysfunction (88).
Nevertheless, these methods are all depend on coronary angiography, in other words, are invasive. It would be more attractive to use non-invasive methods to estimate the index of microvascular function. So far, several non-invasive CFR assessment techniques have been developed, including transthoracic Doppler echocardiography (TTDE) (89), myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) (90), positron emission tomography (PET) (91), and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) (92). TTDE, PET and CMR have been recommended as IIb indication for the detection of microcirculatory dysfunction (14). The detailed information as well as advantages and disadvantages of various invasive and non-invasive methods are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of various coronary functional assessment indices.
Coronary functional assessment in non-obstructive CAD
For patients with persistent angina but angiographically normal or moderate stenosis with preserved iFR/FFR, guidewire-based CFR and/or IMR measurements is recommended as IIa indication to detect microvascular angina. Intracoronary provocation test is also a class IIa recommendation to identify coronary spasm in patients with non-obstructive lesions on coronary arteriography. Additionally, intracoronary injection of acetylcholine may also be considered to assess microvascular vasospasm (14).
As the guideline recommended, preserved iFR/FFR is essential in the diagnose of microvascular angina with angiographically moderate coronary stenosis. In other words, we might need to perform iFR/FFR measure to rule out pseudo-non-obstructive CAD with mild to moderate stenosis (93). Since previous studies had revealed that both RFR and dPR were closely correlated with iFR, and cFFR was superior to iFR for predicting FFR, it is reasonable to use these indices to exclude actually obstructive coronary with <50% stenosis, despite there is a lack of large clinical trials to investigate the role of these methods in the context of INOCA. QFR, an angiography-based approach, might be more promising in the detect of flow limited coronary lesions with less cost, time and complications associated with pressure wire and hyperemic drugs. In a post-hoc analysis of patients without significant angiographically stenosis, QFR value ≤ 0.80 was showed to be strongly associated with major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in long-term follow-up (94). However, precisely calculate QFR depends on the high quality of angiography images, besides, microcirculatory resistance and coronary flow velocity might affect the consistency between QFR and FFR (95). Larger studies are needed to further investigated the role of QFR in non-obstructive CAD. FFRCT is another possible alternative method to FFR, due to its non-invasive characteristic with comparable property to invasive FFR (96, 97). However, it is reported that FFRCT value ≤ 0.80 was found in the distal coronary artery segment in asymptomatic male marathon runners with no coronary stenosis (98), therefore, it is important to interpret the result of FFRCT individually. Most recently, a prospective multicenter observational study, the China CT-FFR Study-2, has conducted to investigate the prognostic value of FFRCT in patient with non-obstructive CAD, which will provide us with a comprehensive risk stratification of FFRCT for non-obstructive CAD (99).
Microvascular angina account for a large proportion of patients with INOCA, CFR and IMR are widely accepted methods to assess microvascular dysfunction (78). However, both CRF and IMR need hyperemic stimulus, which limits their routine use in clinical practice. Continuous intracoronary thermodilution and AngioIMR have been investigated in patients without obvious obstructive coronary stenosis. Rivero et al. (84) and Konst et al. (85) both reported that IMR derived from continuous intracoronary thermodilution is an accurate index to diagnosis of coronary microvascular dysfunction. The value of continuous intracoronary thermodilution for the assessment of microcirculatory dysfunction was also verified in patients with diabetes (100). Most recently, the role of AngioIMR in INOCA was examined as well, and the result revealed that AngioIMR is moderate correlation with HMR and has high accuracy in predicting microcirculatory dysfunction (87). Provocation test with acetylcholine might should also be considered as functional test to identify whether epicardial or microvascular vasospasm exit in patient with suspected INOCA.
Unlike INOCA, no guideline recommended routine coronary functional assessment in acute myocardial infarction. However, recent evidence indicate that functional assessment is crucial to identify the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and provide individual treatment strategy to MINOCA. In stable chest pain patients, up to 25% ones with 30–50% stenosis have functionally significant stenosis when assessed by FFR (93), which might also apply to MINOCA. However, limited data yet evaluate the role of FFR in MINOCA. According to the AHA statement, FFR may be considered in select patients with borderline obstructive lesion, and only if FFR >0.80 can be diagnosis as MINOCA (8). Similar to INOCA, it is reasonable to use resting physiological indices, despite no supported data, to instead of FFR to avoid the use of hyperemic agents. Recently, Li et al. (101) reported the use of QFR in a patient with MINOCA and proposed QFR might be an efficient approach in the context of MINOCA. Nevertheless, more studies are needed to determine the number of patients with suspected MINOCA who have functionally significant stenosis.
Microcirculatory dysfunction is also regarded as an important cause of MINOCA. To date, no clinical trials investigated the role of conventional wire-dependent CFR and IMR in MINOCA, but most recently, angiography-derived IMR has been investigated in MONICA. The results showed that angiography-derived IMR (caIMR) was a strong predictor of clinical outcome among patients with MONICA, and high caIMR (>43) was an independent predictor of MACE (102). Nonetheless, we still have no idea about the causal relationship between microcirculatory resistance and MINOCA.
CMR is one of the widely used technique to assess myocardial perfusion (103). It allows visualization of transmural myocardial flow and assessment of microvascular function in patients suspected with microvascular angina (104). Meanwhile, CMR is crucial for the diagnosis of MINOCA, due to its perfect ability to exclude acute myocarditis and Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (105). Moreover, CMR is non-invasive and non-radioactive, therefore, CMR is an ideal method to evaluate the microcirculatory dysfunction of MINOCA, especially high-resolution late gadolinium enhancement CMR (106).
Traditionally, provocation test is not routinely used in the context of MI due to multiple safety concerns, such as malign arrhythmias. However, prolonged vasospastic episodes can result in MINOCA and patients with coronary spasm-induced MINOCA might have a higher risk of cardiac death, recurrence of ACS and worse angina (29). Actually, provocation test with Ach has been demonstrated as a feasible technique with acceptable level of safety in the context of vasospastic angina (107, 108) or MINOCA (29, 109). Most recently, Montone et al. (110) reported that Ach provocation test had a low risk of mild and transient complications, with a similar prevalence in both INOCA and MINOCA. Besides, provocation test can help to identify the underlying specific mechanisms of MINOCA and provide individualized pharmacological therapy and prognostic information (109). Hence, it is critical to use provocation test, when coronary spasm is suspected, to identify high-risk patient subgroup.
In fact, different pathophysiologic mechanisms might concurrently exist in the process of MINOCA, therefore, techniques simultaneously provide anatomical and functional information are of great promising. Fortunately, we now have the technique of OFR and UFR, which allow us to get the information of flow reserve, stenosis degree and plaque property at the same time. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have investigated the role of OFR or UFR in MINOCA, it might be a breakthrough to use OFR or UFR to concurrently detect the underline causes and guide the therapy of MINOCA. Furthermore, with the development of technology, the combination of QCT/IVUS with IMR or CFR might also realize in the near future. We believe that more precise therapeutic strategy would be established and applied in MINOCA with the help of more advanced coronary functional assess devices.
Conclusion and perspective
Numerous studies have demonstrated physiological indices-guided coronary intervention is superior to angiography-based strategy in patients with obstructive CAD (51, 64, 111–113). While in non-obstructive CAD patients, coronary functional assessment provides more precise and individualized treatment as well. Firstly, coronary functional indices, both invasive (e.g., FFR, iFR and QFR) and non-invasive (FFRCT), can identify truly non-obstructive CAD among those mild to moderate angiographically stenosis (generally 30–50% according to eyeballing). Secondly, functionally assessment, including wire-based (i.e., CFR, IMR), non-wire-based (Angio-IMR and caIMR) and imaging-based (TTDE, PET and CMR) can evaluate the microcirculatory function, which is regarded as a major mechanism for non-obstructive CAD. Thirdly, with the help of provocation test, vasospastic angina can be identified and treatment targeting coronary spasm will be established. Lastly, anatomically and physiologically combined technologies (OFR and UFR) allow us to simultaneously acquire the information of lumen structure, plaque property, and flow reserve, consequently help us to further understand the underling mechanisms of non-obstructive CAD (especially MINOCA) and to develop specific therapeutic strategies.
Despite the current guidelines recommend the use of FFR/iFR to identify non-obstructive CAD with moderate stenosis, besides, the diagnosis of INOCA is depend on the measurement of CFR, IMR, HMR and vasoreactivity test (4, 14). Several disadvantages, including the use of guidewire, additional expenditure, prolonged time, the need of hyperemic medicine and procedure-related complications, limit the routine use of these functional assessment methods. Hence, non-invasive or relative “non-invasive” methods, for example, FFRCT, QFR and Angio-IMR, might provide more promising and attractive utility in clinical practice. Furthermore, in the near future, the microcirculatory resistance perhaps can be assessed by CT, truly realizing the possibility of non-invasive-measured IMR. Nevertheless, it is worth to note that these (potential) techniques are largely dependent on the imaging quality of invasive coronary angiography or computed tomography angiography (CTA). More clinical trials with larger samples and long-term follow-up are needed to investigate the validity of these novel techniques in patients with non-obstructive CAD.
In conclusion, a comprehensive functional assessment is important to identify the underlying mechanism of myocardial ischemia and consequently provide an individualized and appropriate treatment strategy.
Author contributions
CZ and HF drafted the manuscript. YC revised the manuscript. YZ searched the literature. LS designed the study and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the content of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the Key Medicine Disciplines Co-construction Project of Jiaxing Municipal (Grant No. 2019-ss-xxgbx), Jiaxing Science and Technology Program (Grant No. 2021AD30060), Pioneer Innovation Team of Jiaxing Institute of Atherosclerotic Diseases (Grant No. XFCX-DMYH), and Jiaxing Key Laboratory of arteriosclerotic Diseases (Grant No. 2020-dmzdsys).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Schindler TH, Dilsizian V. Coronary microvascular dysfunction: clinical considerations and noninvasive diagnosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imag. (2020) 13:140–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.11.036
2. Widmer RJ, Samuels B, Samady H, Price MJ, Jeremias A, Anderson RD, et al. The functional assessment of patients with non-obstructive coronary artery disease: expert review from an international microcirculation working group. EuroIntervention. (2019) 14:1694–702. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00982
3. Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, Brennan JM, Redberg RF, Anderson HV, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med. (2010) 362:886–95. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907272
4. Kunadian V, Chieffo A, Camici PG, Berry C, Escaned J, Maas A, et al. An EAPCI expert consensus document on ischaemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries in collaboration with European society of cardiology working group on coronary pathophysiology and microcirculation endorsed by coronary vasomotor disorders international study group. Eur Heart J. (2020) 41:3504–20. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa503
5. Bairey Merz CN, Pepine CJ, Walsh MN, Fleg JL. Ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA): developing evidence-based therapies and research agenda for the next decade. Circulation. (2017) 135:1075–92. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.024534
6. Pauly DF, Johnson BD, Anderson RD, Handberg EM, Smith KM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, et al. In women with symptoms of cardiac ischemia, nonobstructive coronary arteries, and microvascular dysfunction, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition is associated with improved microvascular function: a double-blind randomized study from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE). Am Heart J. (2011) 162:678–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2011.07.011
7. Bairey Merz CN, Shaw LJ, Reis SE, Bittner V, Kelsey SF, Olson M. et a. Insights from the NHLBI-Sponsored Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) Study: Part II: gender differences in presentation, diagnosis, and outcome with regard to gender-based pathophysiology of atherosclerosis and macrovascular and microvascular coronary disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2006) 47:S21–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.12.084
8. Tamis-Holland JE, Jneid H, Reynolds HR, Agewall S, Brilakis ES, et al. Contemporary diagnosis and management of patients with myocardial infarction in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. (2019) 139:e891–908. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000670
9. Lindahl B, Baron T, Erlinge D, Hadziosmanovic N, Nordenskjold A, Gard A, et al. Medical therapy for secondary prevention and long-term outcome in patients with myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary artery disease. Circulation. (2017) 135:1481–9. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.026336
10. Pasupathy S, Air T, Dreyer RP, Tavella R, Beltrame JF. Systematic review of patients presenting with suspected myocardial infarction and nonobstructive coronary arteries. Circulation. (2015) 131:861–70. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.011201
11. Bossard M, Gao P, Boden W, Steg G, Tanguay JF, Joyner C, et al. Antiplatelet therapy in patients with myocardial infarction without obstructive coronary artery disease. Heart. (2021) 107:1739–47. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-318045
12. Planer D, Mehran R, Ohman EM, White HD, Newman JD, Xu K, et al. Prognosis of patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and nonobstructive coronary artery disease: propensity-matched analysis from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. (2014) 7:285–93. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.113.000606
13. Rakowski T, De Luca G, Siudak Z, Plens K, Dziewierz A, Kleczynski P, et al. Characteristics of patients presenting with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) in Poland: data from the ORPKI national registry. J Thromb Thrombolysis. (2019) 47:462–6. doi: 10.1007/s11239-018-1794-z
14. Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, Capodanno D, Barbato E, Funck-Brentano C, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. (2020) 41:407–77. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425
15. Talebi S, Jadhav P, Tamis-Holland JE. Myocardial infarction in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA): a review of the present and preview of the future. Curr Atheroscler Rep. (2021) 23:49. doi: 10.1007/s11883-021-00945-0
16. Jia H, Abtahian F, Aguirre AD, Lee S, Chia S, Lowe H, et al. In vivo diagnosis of plaque erosion and calcified nodule in patients with acute coronary syndrome by intravascular optical coherence tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2013) 62:1748–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.071
17. Ouldzein H, Elbaz M, Roncalli J, Cagnac R, Carrie D, Puel J, et al. Plaque rupture and morphological characteristics of the culprit lesion in acute coronary syndromes without significant angiographic lesion: analysis by intravascular ultrasound. Ann Cardiol Angeiol (Paris). (2012) 61:20–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ancard.2011.07.011
18. Iqbal SN, Feit F, Mancini GB, Wood D, Patel R, Pena-Sing I, et al. Characteristics of plaque disruption by intravascular ultrasound in women presenting with myocardial infarction without obstructive coronary artery disease. Am Heart J. (2014) 167:715–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2014.01.011
19. Araki M, Park SJ, Dauerman HL, Uemura S, Kim JS, Di Mario C, et al. Optical coherence tomography in coronary atherosclerosis assessment and intervention. Nat Rev Cardiol. (2022). doi: 10.1038/s41569-022-00687-9. [Epub ahead of print].
20. Virmani R, Burke AP, Kolodgie FD, Farb A. Pathology of the thin-cap fibroatheroma: a type of vulnerable plaque. J Interv Cardiol. (2003) 16:267–72. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0854.2003.8042.x
21. Bentzon JF, Otsuka F, Virmani R, Falk E. Mechanisms of plaque formation and rupture. Circ Res. (2014) 114:1852–66. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.302721
22. Fahed AC, Jang IK. Plaque erosion and acute coronary syndromes: phenotype, molecular characteristics and future directions. Nat Rev Cardiol. (2021) 18:724–34. doi: 10.1038/s41569-021-00542-3
23. Sugane H, Kataoka Y, Otsuka F, Nakaoku Y, Nishimura K, Nakano H, et al. Cardiac outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome attributable to calcified nodule. Atherosclerosis. (2021) 318:70–5. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2020.11.005
24. Lawler PR, Bhatt DL, Godoy LC, Luscher TF, Bonow RO, Verma S, et al. Targeting cardiovascular inflammation: next steps in clinical translation. Eur Heart J. (2021) 42:113–31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa099
25. Ohyama K, Matsumoto Y, Takanami K, Ota H, Nishimiya K, Sugisawa J, et al. Coronary adventitial and perivascular adipose tissue inflammation in patients with vasospastic angina. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2018) 71:414–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.046
26. Sagris M, Theofilis P, Antonopoulos AS, Oikonomou E, Paschaliori C, Galiatsatos N, et al. Inflammation in coronary microvascular dysfunction. Int J Mol Sci. (2021) 22:13471. doi: 10.3390/ijms222413471
27. Matta A, Bouisset F, Lhermusier T, Campelo-Parada F, Elbaz M, Carrie D, et al. Coronary artery spasm: new insights. J Interv Cardiol. (2020) 2020:5894586. doi: 10.1155/2020/5894586
28. Prinzmetal M, Kennamer R, Merliss R, Wada T, Bor N. Angina pectoris I A variant form of angina pectoris; preliminary report. Am J Med. (1959) 27:375–88. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(59)90003-8
29. Montone RA, Niccoli G, Fracassi F, Russo M, Gurgoglione F, Camma G, et al. Patients with acute myocardial infarction and non-obstructive coronary arteries: safety and prognostic relevance of invasive coronary provocative tests. Eur Heart J. (2018) 39:91–8. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx667
30. Del Buono MG, Montone RA, Camilli M, Carbone S, Narula J, Lavie CJ, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction across the spectrum of cardiovascular diseases: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2021) 78:1352–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.07.042
31. Elgendy IY, Ya'Qoub L, Chen KH, Pepine CJ. Coronary microvascular dysfunction in patients with non-obstructive coronary arteries: current gaps and future directions. Drugs. (2022) 82:241–50. doi: 10.1007/s40265-021-01667-y
32. Padro T, Manfrini O, Bugiardini R, Canty J, Cenko E, De Luca G, et al. ESC Working Group on Coronary Pathophysiology and Microcirculation position paper on 'coronary microvascular dysfunction in cardiovascular disease'. Cardiovasc Res. (2020) 116:741–55. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvaa003
33. Sucato V, Novo G, Saladino A, Evola S, Galassi AR. Coronary microvascular dysfunction. Minerva Cardioangiol. (2020) 68:153–63. doi: 10.23736/S0026-4725.20.05070-7
34. Opolski MP, Spiewak M, Marczak M, Debski A, Knaapen P, Schumacher SP, et al. Mechanisms of myocardial infarction in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease: results from the optical coherence tomography study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. (2019) 12:2210–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.08.022
35. Dastidar AG, Baritussio A, De Garate E, Drobni Z, Biglino G, Singhal P, et al. Prognostic role of CMR and conventional risk factors in myocardial infarction with nonobstructed coronary arteries. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. (2019) 12:1973–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.12.023
36. Goel R, King KE, Takemoto CM, Ness PM, Tobian AA. Prognostic risk-stratified score for predicting mortality in hospitalized patients with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura: nationally representative data from 2007 to 2012. Transfusion. (2016) 56:1451–8. doi: 10.1111/trf.13586
37. Cervera R. Antiphospholipid syndrome. Thromb Res. (2017) 151 Suppl 1:S43–7. doi: 10.1016/S0049-3848(17)30066-X
38. Hayes SN, Tweet MS, Adlam D, Kim ESH, Gulati R, Price JE, et al. Spontaneous coronary artery dissection: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2020) 76:961–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.084
39. Raparelli V, Elharram M, Shimony A, Eisenberg MJ, Cheema AN, et al. Myocardial infarction with no obstructive coronary artery disease: angiographic and clinical insights in patients with premature presentation. Can J Cardiol. (2018) 34:468–76. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2018.01.004
40. Gerbaud E, Arabucki F, Nivet H, Barbey C, Cetran L, Chassaing S, et al. OCT and CMR for the diagnosis of patients presenting with MINOCA and suspected Epicardial causes. JACC Cardiovasc Imag. (2020) 13:2619–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.05.045
41. Paulo M, Sandoval J, Lennie V, Dutary J, Medina M, Gonzalo N, et al. Combined use of OCT and IVUS in spontaneous coronary artery dissection. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. (2013) 6:830–2. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2013.02.010
42. Arnold JR, West NE, van Gaal WJ, Karamitsos TD, Banning AP. The role of intravascular ultrasound in the management of spontaneous coronary artery dissection. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. (2008) 6:24. doi: 10.1186/1476-7120-6-24
43. Matta A, Nader V, Canitrot R, Delmas C, Bouisset F, Lhermusier T, et al. Myocardial bridging is significantly associated to myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. (2022) 11:501–7. doi: 10.1016/j.acvdsp.2021.09.018
44. Montone RA, Gurgoglione FL, Del Buono MG, Rinaldi R, Meucci MC, Iannaccone G, et al. Interplay between myocardial bridging and coronary spasm in patients with myocardial ischemia and non-obstructive coronary arteries: pathogenic and prognostic implications. J Am Heart Assoc. (2021) 10:e020535. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.020535
45. Huynh K. Inflammation in plaque erosion and rupture. Nat Rev Cardiol. (2022) 19:80. doi: 10.1038/s41569-021-00654-w
46. Wu MY, Yiang GT, Liao WT, Tsai AP, Cheng YL, Cheng PW, et al. Current mechanistic concepts in ischemia and reperfusion injury. Cell Physiol Biochem. (2018) 46:1650–67. doi: 10.1159/000489241
47. Del Re DP, Amgalan D, Linkermann A, Liu Q, Kitsis RN. Fundamental mechanisms of regulated cell death and implications for heart disease. Physiol Rev. (2019) 99:1765–817. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00022.2018
48. Nair PK, Marroquin OC, Mulukutla SR, Khandhar S, Gulati V, Schindler JT, et al. Clinical utility of regadenoson for assessing fractional flow reserve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2011) 4:1085–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2011.07.011
49. Arumugham P, Figueredo VM, Patel PB, Morris DL. Comparison of intravenous adenosine and intravenous regadenoson for the measurement of pressure-derived coronary fractional flow reserve. EuroIntervention. (2013) 8:1166–71. doi: 10.4244/EIJV8I10A180
50. Prasad A, Zareh M, Doherty R, Gopal A, Vora H, Somma K, et al. Use of regadenoson for measurement of fractional flow reserve. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. (2014) 83:369–74. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25055
51. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Siebert U, Ikeno F, van' t Veer M, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. (2009) 360:213–24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0807611
52. Lee JM, Lee SH, Hwang D, Rhee TM, Choi KH, Kim J, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of nonhyperemic pressure ratios: resting full-cycle ratio, diastolic pressure ratio, and instantaneous wave-free ratio. J Am Heart Assoc. (2020) 9:e016818. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.016818
53. Leone AM, Lassandro Pepe F, Arioti M, Crea F. Contrast Fractional Flow Reserve (cFFR): a pragmatic response to the call for simplification of invasive functional assessment. Int J Cardiol. (2018) 268:45–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.04.048
54. Gotberg M, Christiansen EH, Gudmundsdottir IJ, Sandhall L, Danielewicz M, Jakobsen L, et al. Instantaneous wave-free ratio versus fractional flow reserve to guide PCI. N Engl J Med. (2017) 376:1813–23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1616540
55. Davies JE, Sen S, Dehbi HM, Al-Lamee R, Petraco R, Nijjer SS, et al. Use of the instantaneous wave-free ratio or fractional flow reserve in PCI. N Engl J Med. (2017) 376:1824–34. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1700445
56. Svanerud J, Ahn JM, Jeremias A, van 't Veer M, Gore A, Maehara A, et al. Validation of a novel non-hyperaemic index of coronary artery stenosis severity: the Resting Full-cycle Ratio (VALIDATE RFR) study. EuroIntervention. (2018) 14:806–14. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00342
57. Johnson NP, Li W, Chen X, Hennigan B, Watkins S, Berry C, et al. Diastolic pressure ratio: new approach and validation vs. the instantaneous wave-free ratio. Eur Heart J. (2019) 40:2585–94. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz230
58. Johnson NP, Jeremias A, Zimmermann FM, Adjedj J, Witt N, Hennigan B, et al. Continuum of vasodilator stress from rest to contrast medium to adenosine hyperemia for fractional flow reserve assessment. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2016) 9:757–67. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.12.273
59. Kobayashi Y, Johnson NP, Berry C, De Bruyne B, Gould KL, Jeremias A, et al. The influence of lesion location on the diagnostic accuracy of adenosine-free coronary pressure wire measurements. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2016) 9:2390–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.08.041
60. Westra J, Tu S, Winther S, Nissen L, Vestergaard MB, Andersen BK, et al. Evaluation of coronary artery stenosis by quantitative flow ratio during invasive coronary angiography: the WIFI II study (Wire-Free Functional Imaging II). Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. (2018) 11:e007107. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.117.007107
61. Tu S, Westra J, Yang J, von Birgelen C, Ferrara A, Pellicano M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fast computational approaches to derive fractional flow reserve from diagnostic coronary angiography: the international multicenter FAVOR pilot study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2016) 9:2024–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.07.013
62. Xu B, Tu S, Qiao S, Qu X, Chen Y, Yang J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of angiography-based quantitative flow ratio measurements for online assessment of coronary stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2017) 70:3077–87. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.035
63. Westra J, Andersen BK, Campo G, Matsuo H, Koltowski L, Eftekhari A, et al. Diagnostic performance of in-procedure angiography-derived quantitative flow reserve compared to pressure-derived fractional flow reserve: the FAVOR II Europe-Japan study. J Am Heart Assoc. (2018) 7:9603. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.009603
64. Xu B, Tu S, Song L, Jin Z, Yu B, Fu G, et al. Angiographic quantitative flow ratio-guided coronary intervention (FAVOR III China): a multicentre, randomised, sham-controlled trial. Lancet. (2021) 398:2149–59. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02248-0
65. Kobayashi Y, Collet C, Achenbach S, Engstrom T, Assali A, Shlofmitz RA, et al. Diagnostic performance of angiography-based fractional flow reserve by patient and lesion characteristics. EuroIntervention. (2021) 17:e294–300. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00933
66. Fearon WF, Achenbach S, Engstrom T, Assali A, Shlofmitz R, Jeremias A, et al. Accuracy of fractional flow reserve derived from coronary angiography. Circulation. (2019) 139:477–84. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037350
67. Ali ZA, Maehara A, Genereux P, Shlofmitz RA, Fabbiocchi F, Nazif TM, et al. Optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and with angiography to guide coronary stent implantation (ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. (2016) 388:2618–28. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31922-5
68. Zhang J, Gao X, Kan J, Ge Z, Han L, Lu S, et al. Intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: the ULTIMATE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2018) 72:3126–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.013
69. Poon EKW, Thondapu V, Revalor E, Ooi A, Barlis P. Coronary optical coherence tomography-derived virtual fractional flow reserve (FFR): anatomy and physiology all-in-one. Eur Heart J. (2017) 38:3604–5. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx594
70. Seike F, Uetani T, Nishimura K, Kawakami H, Higashi H, Aono J, et al. Intracoronary optical coherence tomography-derived virtual fractional flow reserve for the assessment of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. (2017) 120:1772–9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.07.083
71. Yu W, Huang J, Jia D, Chen S, Raffel OC, Ding D, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intracoronary optical coherence tomography-derived fractional flow reserve for assessment of coronary stenosis severity. EuroIntervention. (2019) 15:189–97. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00182
72. Ding D, Yu W, Tauzin H, De Maria GL, Wu P, Yang F, et al. Optical flow ratio for assessing stenting result and physiological significance of residual disease. EuroIntervention. (2021) 17:e989–98. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00185
73. Seike F, Uetani T, Nishimura K, Kawakami H, Higashi H, Fujii A, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-derived virtual fractional flow reserve for the assessment of myocardial ischemia. Circ J. (2018) 82:815–23. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-17-1042
74. Yu W, Tanigaki T, Ding D, Wu P, Du H, Ling L, et al. Accuracy of intravascular ultrasound-based fractional flow reserve in identifying hemodynamic significance of coronary stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. (2021) 14:e009840. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009840
75. Mangiacapra F, Viscusi MM, Verolino G, Paolucci L, Nusca A, et al. Invasive Assessment of Coronary Microvascular Function. J Clin Med. (2021) 11:228. doi: 10.3390/jcm11010228
76. Everaars H, de Waard GA, Driessen RS, Danad I, van de Ven PM, Raijmakers PG, et al. Doppler flow velocity and thermodilution to assess coronary flow reserve: a head-to-head comparison with [(15)O]H2O Pet. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2018) 11:2044–54. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.07.011
77. Lee JM, Jung JH, Hwang D, Park J, Fan Y, Na SH, et al. Coronary flow reserve and microcirculatory resistance in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2016) 67:1158–69. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.12.053
78. Ford TJ, Stanley B, Good R, Rocchiccioli P, McEntegart M, Watkins S, et al. Stratified medical therapy using invasive coronary function testing in angina: the CorMicA trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2018) 72:2841–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.006
79. van de Hoef TP, van Lavieren MA, Damman P, Delewi R, Piek MA, Chamuleau SA, et al. Physiological basis and long-term clinical outcome of discordance between fractional flow reserve and coronary flow velocity reserve in coronary stenoses of intermediate severity. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. (2014) 7:301–11. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.113.001049
80. Beltrame JF, Crea F, Kaski JC, Ogawa H, Ong P, Sechtem U, et al. International standardization of diagnostic criteria for vasospastic angina. Eur Heart J. (2017) 38:2565–8.
81. Fearon WF, Balsam LB, Farouque HM, Caffarelli AD, Robbins RC, Fitzgerald PJ, et al. Novel index for invasively assessing the coronary microcirculation. Circulation. (2003) 107:3129–32. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000080700.98607.D1
82. Fearon WF, Kobayashi Y. Invasive assessment of the coronary microvasculature: the index of microcirculatory resistance. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. (2017) 10:5361. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005361
83. Sheikh AR, Zeitz CJ, Rajendran S, Di Fiore DP, Tavella R, Beltrame JF. Clinical and coronary haemodynamic determinants of recurrent chest pain in patients without obstructive coronary artery disease—a pilot study. Int J Cardiol. (2018) 267:16–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.04.077
84. Rivero F, Gutierrez-Barrios A, Gomez-Lara J, Fuentes-Ferrer M, Cuesta J, Keulards DCJ, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunction assessed by continuous intracoronary thermodilution: a comparative study with index of microvascular resistance. Int J Cardiol. (2021) 333:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.03.005
85. Konst RE, Elias-Smale SE, Pellegrini D, Hartzema-Meijer M, van Uden BJC, Jansen TPJ, et al. Absolute coronary blood flow measured by continuous thermodilution in patients with ischemia and nonobstructive disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2021) 77:728–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.12.019
86. Mejia-Renteria H, Lee JM, Choi KH, Lee SH, Wang L, Kakuta T, et al. Coronary microcirculation assessment using functional angiography: development of a wire-free method applicable to conventional coronary angiograms. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. (2021) 98:1027–37. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29863
87. Dai N, Che W, Liu L, Zhang W, Yin G, Xu B, et al. Diagnostic value of angiography-derived IMR for coronary microcirculation and its prognostic implication after PCI. Front Cardiovasc Med. (2021) 8:735743. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.735743
88. Choi KH Dai N, Li Y, Kim J, Shin D, Lee SH, et al. Functional coronary angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2021) 14:1670–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.05.027
89. Matsumura Y, Hozumi T, Watanabe H, Fujimoto K, Sugioka K, Takemoto Y, et al. Cut-off value of coronary flow velocity reserve by transthoracic Doppler echocardiography for diagnosis of significant left anterior descending artery stenosis in patients with coronary risk factors. Am J Cardiol. (2003) 92:1389–93. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2003.08.042
90. Abdelmoneim SS, Dhoble A, Bernier M, Moir S, Hagen ME, Ness SA, et al. Absolute myocardial blood flow determination using real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography during adenosine stress: comparison with single-photon emission computed tomography. Heart. (2009) 95:1662–8. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2009.169268
91. Danad I, Uusitalo V, Kero T, Saraste A, Raijmakers PG, Lammertsma AA, et al. Quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion in the detection of significant coronary artery disease: cutoff values and diagnostic accuracy of quantitative [(15)O]H2O PET imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2014) 64:1464–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.069
92. Rieber J, Huber A, Erhard I, Mueller S, Schweyer M, Koenig A, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for the functional assessment of coronary artery disease: a comparison with coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. Eur Heart J. (2006) 27:1465–71. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehl039
93. Curzen N, Rana O, Nicholas Z, Golledge P, Zaman A, Oldroyd K, et al. Does routine pressure wire assessment influence management strategy at coronary angiography for diagnosis of chest pain? : the RIPCORD study Circ Cardiovasc Interv. (2014) 7:248–55. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.113.000978
94. Buono A, Muhlenhaus A, Schafer T, Trieb AK, Schmeisser J, Koppe F, et al. QFR Predicts the incidence of long-term adverse events in patients with suspected CAD: feasibility and reproducibility of the method. J Clin Med. (2020) 9:220. doi: 10.3390/jcm9010220
95. Kanno Y, Hoshino M, Hamaya R, Sugiyama T, Kanaji Y, Usui E, et al. Functional classification discordance in intermediate coronary stenoses between fractional flow reserve and angiography-based quantitative flow ratio. Open Heart. (2020) 7:e001179. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2019-001179
96. Norgaard BL, Leipsic J, Gaur S, Seneviratne S, Ko BS, Ito H, et al. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps). J Am Coll Cardiol. (2014) 63:1145–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.043
97. Driessen RS, Danad I, Stuijfzand WJ, Raijmakers PG, Schumacher SP, van Diemen PA, et al. Comparison of coronary computed tomography angiography, fractional flow reserve, and perfusion imaging for ischemia diagnosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2019) 73:161–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.056
98. Gassenmaier S, Tsiflikas I, Greulich S, Kuebler J, Hagen F, Nikolaou K, et al. Prevalence of pathological FFRCT values without coronary artery stenosis in an asymptomatic marathon runner cohort. Eur Radiol. (2021) 31:8975–82. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08027-0
99. Zhou F, Chen Q, Luo X, Cao W, Li Z, Zhang B, et al. Prognostic value of coronary CT angiography-derived fractional flow reserve in non-obstructive coronary artery disease: a prospective multicenter observational study. Front Cardiovasc Med. (2021) 8:778010. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.778010
100. Gallinoro E, Paolisso P, Candreva A, Bermpeis K, Fabbricatore D, Esposito G, et al. Microvascular dysfunction in patients with type II diabetes mellitus: invasive assessment of absolute coronary blood flow and microvascular resistance reserve. Front Cardiovasc Med. (2021) 8:765071. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.765071
101. Li M, Liu Y, Wang H. Diagnosis and prognosis of myocardial infarction in a patient without obstructive coronary artery disease during bronchoscopy: a case study and literature review. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. (2020) 20:185. doi: 10.1186/s12872-020-01458-5
102. Abdu FA, Liu L, Mohammed AQ, Yin G, Xu B, Zhang W, et al. Prognostic impact of coronary microvascular dysfunction in patients with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries. Eur J Intern Med. (2021) 92:79–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2021.05.027
103. Guo R, Weingartner S, Siuryte P, Fuetterer M, Suinesiaputra A, Jerosch-Herold M, et al. Emerging techniques in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. (2022) 55:1043–59. doi: 10.1002/jmri.27848
104. Liu A, Wijesurendra RS, Liu JM, Forfar JC, Channon KM, Jerosch-Herold M, et al. Diagnosis of microvascular angina using cardiac magnetic resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2018) 71:969–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.12.046
105. Machanahalli Balakrishna A, Ismayl M, Thandra A, Walters R, Ganesan V, Anugula D, et al. Diagnostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and intracoronary optical coherence tomography in patients with a working diagnosis of myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Probl Cardiol. (2022) 2022:101126. doi: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101126
106. Lintingre PF, Nivet H, Clement-Guinaudeau S, Camaioni C, Sridi S, Corneloup O, et al. High-resolution late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction with nonobstructed coronary arteries. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. (2020) 13:1135–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.11.020
107. Takagi Y, Yasuda S, Takahashi J, Tsunoda R, Ogata Y, Seki A, et al. Clinical implications of provocation tests for coronary artery spasm: safety, arrhythmic complications, and prognostic impact: multicentre registry study of the Japanese Coronary Spasm Association. Eur Heart J. (2013) 34:258–67. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs199
108. Tateishi K, Saito Y, Kitahara H, Shoji T, Kadohira T, Nakayama T, et al. Safety and usefulness of acetylcholine provocation test in patients with no culprit lesions on emergency coronary angiography. Int J Cardiol. (2018) 269:27–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.06.108
109. Montone RA, Meucci MC, De Vita A, Lanza GA, Niccoli G. Coronary provocative tests in the catheterization laboratory: pathophysiological bases, methodological considerations and clinical implications. Atherosclerosis. (2021) 318:14–21. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2020.12.008
110. Montone RA, Rinaldi R, Del Buono MG, Gurgoglione F, La Vecchia G, Russo M, et al. Safety and prognostic relevance of acetylcholine testing in patients with stable myocardial ischaemia or myocardial infarction and non-obstructive coronary arteries. EuroIntervention. (2022). doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00971. [Epub ahead of print].
111. van Nunen LX, Zimmermann FM, Tonino PA, Barbato E, Baumbach A, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. (2015) 386:1853–60. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00057-4
112. Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino PA, Siebert U, Ikeno F, Bornschein B, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2010) 56:177–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.04.012
113. Andreini D, Modolo R, Katagiri Y, Mushtaq S, Sonck J, Collet C, et al. Impact of fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography on heart team treatment decision-making in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: insights from the SYNTAX III REVOLUTION trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. (2019) 12:e007607. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.007607
Keywords: coronary functional assessment, INOCA, MINOCA, microvascular dysfunction, vasomotion abnormality
Citation: Zhai C, Fan H, Zhu Y, Chen Y and Shen L (2022) Coronary functional assessment in non-obstructive coronary artery disease: Present situation and future direction. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 9:934279. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.934279
Received: 02 May 2022; Accepted: 08 August 2022;
Published: 23 August 2022.
Edited by:
Tommaso Gori, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, GermanyReviewed by:
Matteo Rocco Reccia, Ospedale San Donato di Arezzo, ItalyVincenzo Sucato, University of Palermo, Italy
Rocco Antonio Montone, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic (IRCCS), Italy
Copyright © 2022 Zhai, Fan, Zhu, Chen and Shen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Liang Shen, c2hlbmxpYW5nODAxMSYjeDAwMDQwOzEyNi5jb20=