Evidence mapPaperPMID 39161975Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2024

Novel diagnostic approaches and management of coronary microvascular dysfunction.

Graziella Pompei, Nandine Ganzorig, Christos P Kotanidis, Mohammad Alkhalil, Carlos Collet, Aish Sinha, Divaka Perera, John Beltrame, Vijay Kunadian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Coronary microvascular dysfunction: a narrative review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Microvascular Resistance Reserve (MRR): a new concept to understand the coronary microcirculation.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Graziella PompeiTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NewcastleUniversity, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Nandine GanzorigTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NewcastleUniversity, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Christos P KotanidisTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NewcastleUniversity, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Mohammad AlkhalilTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NewcastleUniversity, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Carlos ColletCardiovascular Center Aalst, OLV Clinic, Aalst, Belgium.
Aish SinhaSchool of Cardiovascular Medicine and Sciences, British Heart Foundation Centre of Excellence and National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, King's College London, London, UK.
Divaka PereraSchool of Cardiovascular Medicine and Sciences, British Heart Foundation Centre of Excellence and National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, King's College London, London, UK.
John BeltrameBasil Hetzel Institute for Translational Health Research, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital & The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
Vijay KunadianTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NewcastleUniversity, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mechanism underlying ischaemic heart disease (IHD) has been primarily attributed to obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). However, non-obstructive coronary arteries are identified in >50% of patients undergoing elective coronary angiography, recently leading to growing interest in the investigation and management of angina/ischaemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA/INOCA). INOCA is an umbrella term encompassing a multiple spectrum of possible pathogenetic entities, including coronary vasomotor disorders which consist of two major endotypes: coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) and vasospastic angina. Both conditions can coexist and be associated with concomitant obstructive CAD. Particularly, CMD refers to myocardial ischaemia due to reduced vasodilatory capacity of coronary microcirculation secondary to structural remodelling or impaired resting microvascular tone (functional) or a combination of both. CMD is not a benign condition and is more prevalent in women presenting with chronic coronary syndrome compared to men. In this setting, an impaired coronary flow reserve has been associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. ANOCA/INOCA patients also experience impaired quality of life and associated increased healthcare costs. Therefore, research in this scenario has led to better definition, classification, and prognostic stratification based on the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. The development and validation of non-invasive imaging modalities, invasive coronary vasomotor function testing and angiography-derived indices provide a comprehensive characterisation of CMD. The present narrative review aims to summarise current data relating to the diagnostic approach to CMD and provides details on the sequence that therapeutic management should follow.

Indexed as

Coronary flow reserveCoronary microvascular dysfunctionIndex of microvascular resistanceIschaemia with non-obstructive coronary arteriesMicrovascular angina

Identifiers

PMID39161975
PMCPMC11332818

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.