Protocol Variation in Functional Coronary Angiography Among Patients With Suspected Angina With Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries: A Nationwide Snapshot of Current Practice Within Australia and New Zealand

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
{"title":"Protocol Variation in Functional Coronary Angiography Among Patients With Suspected Angina With Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries: A Nationwide Snapshot of Current Practice Within Australia and New Zealand","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.hlc.2024.04.299","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Functional coronary angiography (FCA) for endotype characterisation (vasospastic angina [VSA], coronary microvascular disease [CMD], or mixed) is recommended among patients with angina with non-obstructive coronary arteries. Whilst clear diagnostic criteria for VSA and CMD exist, there is no standardised FCA protocol. Variations in testing protocol may limit the widespread uptake of testing, generalisability of results, and expansion of collaborative research. At present, there are no data describing protocol variation across an entire geographic region. Therefore, we aimed to capture current practice variations in the approach to FCA to improve access and standardisation for diagnosis of coronary vasomotor disorders in Australia and New Zealand.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Between July 2022 and July 2023, we conducted a national survey across all centres in Australia and New Zealand with an active FCA program. The survey captured attitudes towards FCA and protocols used for diagnosis of coronary vasomotor disorders at 33 hospitals across Australia and New Zealand.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Survey responses were received from 39 clinicians from 33 centres, with representation from centres within all Australian states and territories and both North and South Islands of New Zealand. A total of 21 centres were identified as having an active FCA program. In general, respondents agreed that comprehensive physiology testing helped inform clinical management. Barriers to program expansion included cost, additional catheter laboratory time, and the absence of an agreed-upon national protocol. Across the clinical sites, there were significant variations in testing protocol, including the technique used (Doppler vs thermodilution), order of testing (hyperaemia resistance indices first vs vasomotor function testing first), rate and dose of acetylcholine administration, routine use of temporary pacing wire, and routine single vs multivessel testing. Overall, testing was performed relatively infrequently, with very little follow-on FCA performed, despite nearly all respondents believing this would be clinically useful.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This survey demonstrates, for the first time, variations in FCA protocol among testing centres across two entire countries. Furthermore, whilst FCA was deemed clinically important, testing was performed relatively infrequently with little or no follow-on testing. Development and adoption of a standardised national FCA protocol may help improve patient access to testing and facilitate further collaborative research within Australia and New Zealand.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":13000,"journal":{"name":"Heart, Lung and Circulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1443950624005882/pdfft?md5=3efce33be6a22c0bbd43b95d1342dac1&pid=1-s2.0-S1443950624005882-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart, Lung and Circulation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1443950624005882","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Functional coronary angiography (FCA) for endotype characterisation (vasospastic angina [VSA], coronary microvascular disease [CMD], or mixed) is recommended among patients with angina with non-obstructive coronary arteries. Whilst clear diagnostic criteria for VSA and CMD exist, there is no standardised FCA protocol. Variations in testing protocol may limit the widespread uptake of testing, generalisability of results, and expansion of collaborative research. At present, there are no data describing protocol variation across an entire geographic region. Therefore, we aimed to capture current practice variations in the approach to FCA to improve access and standardisation for diagnosis of coronary vasomotor disorders in Australia and New Zealand.

Method

Between July 2022 and July 2023, we conducted a national survey across all centres in Australia and New Zealand with an active FCA program. The survey captured attitudes towards FCA and protocols used for diagnosis of coronary vasomotor disorders at 33 hospitals across Australia and New Zealand.

Results

Survey responses were received from 39 clinicians from 33 centres, with representation from centres within all Australian states and territories and both North and South Islands of New Zealand. A total of 21 centres were identified as having an active FCA program. In general, respondents agreed that comprehensive physiology testing helped inform clinical management. Barriers to program expansion included cost, additional catheter laboratory time, and the absence of an agreed-upon national protocol. Across the clinical sites, there were significant variations in testing protocol, including the technique used (Doppler vs thermodilution), order of testing (hyperaemia resistance indices first vs vasomotor function testing first), rate and dose of acetylcholine administration, routine use of temporary pacing wire, and routine single vs multivessel testing. Overall, testing was performed relatively infrequently, with very little follow-on FCA performed, despite nearly all respondents believing this would be clinically useful.

Conclusions

This survey demonstrates, for the first time, variations in FCA protocol among testing centres across two entire countries. Furthermore, whilst FCA was deemed clinically important, testing was performed relatively infrequently with little or no follow-on testing. Development and adoption of a standardised national FCA protocol may help improve patient access to testing and facilitate further collaborative research within Australia and New Zealand.

疑似冠状动脉非阻塞性心绞痛患者的功能性冠状动脉造影术方案差异:澳大利亚和新西兰全国范围内的现行实践快照。
背景:建议对冠状动脉无阻塞的心绞痛患者进行功能性冠状动脉造影(FCA)以确定内型特征(血管痉挛性心绞痛 [VSA]、冠状动脉微血管疾病 [CMD] 或混合型)。虽然 VSA 和 CMD 有明确的诊断标准,但目前还没有标准化的 FCA 方案。检测方案的不同可能会限制检测的普及、结果的普遍性以及合作研究的扩展。目前,还没有数据描述整个地理区域的方案差异。因此,我们的目标是掌握当前 FCA 方法的实践差异,以提高澳大利亚和新西兰冠状血管运动障碍诊断的可及性和标准化:方法:2022 年 7 月至 2023 年 7 月期间,我们对澳大利亚和新西兰所有开展 FCA 项目的中心进行了一次全国性调查。调查了解了澳大利亚和新西兰33家医院对FCA的态度以及用于诊断冠状动脉血管运动障碍的方案:调查收到了来自 33 家中心的 39 名临床医生的回复,其中包括澳大利亚各州和领地以及新西兰南北岛的中心代表。共有 21 家中心被确认为拥有积极的 FCA 计划。总体而言,受访者一致认为综合生理学测试有助于为临床管理提供依据。项目扩展的障碍包括成本、额外的导管实验室时间以及缺乏一致认可的国家协议。各临床研究机构的检测方案存在显著差异,包括使用的技术(多普勒与热稀释)、检测顺序(高血流阻力指数优先与血管运动功能检测优先)、乙酰胆碱给药速度和剂量、临时起搏导线的常规使用以及常规单血管检测与多血管检测。总体而言,尽管几乎所有受访者都认为 FCA 对临床有用,但测试的频率相对较低,很少进行后续 FCA:这项调查首次展示了两个国家的检测中心在 FCA 方案上的差异。此外,虽然 FCA 被认为在临床上很重要,但检测的频率相对较低,很少或根本没有后续检测。制定和采用标准化的国家 FCA 方案可能有助于改善患者接受检测的机会,并促进澳大利亚和新西兰国内的进一步合作研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Heart, Lung and Circulation
Heart, Lung and Circulation CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.80%
发文量
912
审稿时长
11.9 weeks
期刊介绍: Heart, Lung and Circulation publishes articles integrating clinical and research activities in the fields of basic cardiovascular science, clinical cardiology and cardiac surgery, with a focus on emerging issues in cardiovascular disease. The journal promotes multidisciplinary dialogue between cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, cardio-pulmonary physicians and cardiovascular scientists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信