ArticleEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging2025
Homogeneity of the coronary microcirculation in angina with non-obstructive coronary artery disease.
Article in European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The value of myocardial perfusion CZT-SPECT in the assessment of coronary microvascular dysfunction in INOCA patients: a comparative study with caIMR.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- PET-based assessment of coronary microvascular dysfunction and its relation to plaque burden and vascular remodeling: integration with microvascular resistance reserve.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- A Novel Demography-Based Approach to Define Patient-Specific Outflow Boundary Conditions in CT-Based FFR Computations.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Homogeneous reduction of 15O-water and PET-determined myocardial flow reserve as a reflection of coronary microvascular dysfunction?European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe homogeneity of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) across different myocardial territories in angina with non-obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA) patients is scarcely explored. This study investigates the variability in microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) across the 3 main perfusion territories of the coronary circulation to investigate the homogeneity or dishomogeneity of microcirculatory function. METHODS AND
resultsThis post hoc analysis of the PACIFIC trials included symptomatic ANOCA patients with [15O]H2O positron emission tomography (PET) and three-vessel invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). MRR was computed in the three main coronary branches by integrating PET-derived coronary flow reserve and invasive FFR. A total of 155 patients (50% male, age 59 ± 10 years) and 465 vessels (MRR: 3.92 ± 1.21) were included. There were no significant differences in MRR among the three coronary branches. Correlations in MRR among the three coronary branches were good (r = 0.76 to 0.86). The mean difference between MRR measurements in different arteries was small (2.4 to 7.5%), without any consistent directional bias. The overall intra-class correlation coefficient for absolute agreement was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.85), indicating good single-measure reliability. Approximately 80% (123/155) of patients showed diagnostic concordance of CMD (MRR ≤3.0) across the three vessels.
conclusionIn most ANOCA patients, microvascular function is homogeneously distributed across the three major coronary territories. Single-artery testing may suffice in many cases, aligning with guidelines. However, some patients exhibit notable inter-territorial variation, suggesting that multi-vessel evaluation may be prudent in borderline scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.