Diagnostic Validity of Acetylcholine Provocation Protocols in the Evaluation of Coronary Artery Spasm in Patients With ANOCA.

IF 6.1 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Rajan Rehan, Chinmay Khandur, Christopher C Y Wong, James Weaver, Pankaj Jain, Mark Adams, Martin K C Ng, Jennifer A Tremmel, Andy S C Yong
{"title":"Diagnostic Validity of Acetylcholine Provocation Protocols in the Evaluation of Coronary Artery Spasm in Patients With ANOCA.","authors":"Rajan Rehan, Chinmay Khandur, Christopher C Y Wong, James Weaver, Pankaj Jain, Mark Adams, Martin K C Ng, Jennifer A Tremmel, Andy S C Yong","doi":"10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.125.015339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Coronary artery spasm (CAS) is a common cause of angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA). While acetylcholine provocation testing is the diagnostic gold standard, protocol variations have led to discrepancies in diagnostic accuracy. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic validity of conventional versus high-dose acetylcholine regimens in patients with ANOCA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multivessel acetylcholine provocation testing was systematically performed in patients with ANOCA and a control cohort undergoing invasive coronary angiography for noncoronary indications. Incremental acetylcholine doses in the left (20-200 μg) and right (20-80 μg) coronary arteries were manually injected over 20 seconds to induce CAS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 62 ANOCA patients with typical CAS symptoms and 20 controls. Conventional-dose acetylcholine testing identified CAS in 67.1% (55/82) of patients, while high-dose testing detected CAS in 79.3% (65/82). Among patients with inducible spasm, 93.4% (61/65) had typical angina consistent with CAS. High-dose acetylcholine demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity (98% versus 87%, <i>P</i>=0.008), but a nonsignificant trend toward lower specificity (80% versus 95%, <i>P</i>=0.08). The high-dose regimen also showed a higher negative predictive value (94% versus 70%, <i>P</i>=0.01), while positive predictive values were comparable (93% versus 98%, <i>P</i>=0.12).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>High-dose acetylcholine provocation improves the detection of CAS in patients with ANOCA but may increase the risk of overdiagnosis. This approach should be reserved for patients with a high clinical suspicion of CAS, with the results interpreted within the broader clinical context.</p>","PeriodicalId":10330,"journal":{"name":"Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions","volume":" ","pages":"e015339"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.125.015339","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Coronary artery spasm (CAS) is a common cause of angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA). While acetylcholine provocation testing is the diagnostic gold standard, protocol variations have led to discrepancies in diagnostic accuracy. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic validity of conventional versus high-dose acetylcholine regimens in patients with ANOCA.

Methods: Multivessel acetylcholine provocation testing was systematically performed in patients with ANOCA and a control cohort undergoing invasive coronary angiography for noncoronary indications. Incremental acetylcholine doses in the left (20-200 μg) and right (20-80 μg) coronary arteries were manually injected over 20 seconds to induce CAS.

Results: The study included 62 ANOCA patients with typical CAS symptoms and 20 controls. Conventional-dose acetylcholine testing identified CAS in 67.1% (55/82) of patients, while high-dose testing detected CAS in 79.3% (65/82). Among patients with inducible spasm, 93.4% (61/65) had typical angina consistent with CAS. High-dose acetylcholine demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity (98% versus 87%, P=0.008), but a nonsignificant trend toward lower specificity (80% versus 95%, P=0.08). The high-dose regimen also showed a higher negative predictive value (94% versus 70%, P=0.01), while positive predictive values were comparable (93% versus 98%, P=0.12).

Conclusions: High-dose acetylcholine provocation improves the detection of CAS in patients with ANOCA but may increase the risk of overdiagnosis. This approach should be reserved for patients with a high clinical suspicion of CAS, with the results interpreted within the broader clinical context.

乙酰胆碱激发方案在评估ANOCA患者冠状动脉痉挛中的诊断有效性。
背景:冠状动脉痉挛(CAS)是非阻塞性冠状动脉(ANOCA)心绞痛的常见原因。虽然乙酰胆碱激发试验是诊断的金标准,但方案的变化导致了诊断准确性的差异。本研究旨在比较常规与高剂量乙酰胆碱方案在ANOCA患者中的诊断有效性。方法:系统地对ANOCA患者进行多血管乙酰胆碱激发试验,并对非冠状动脉适应症进行有创冠状动脉造影。人工在左冠状动脉(20 ~ 200 μg)和右冠状动脉(20 ~ 80 μg)增加乙酰胆碱剂量,持续20秒诱导CAS。结果:本研究纳入了62例具有典型CAS症状的ANOCA患者和20例对照。常规剂量乙酰胆碱检测检出CAS的患者占67.1%(55/82),而高剂量检测检出CAS的患者占79.3%(65/82)。在诱发性痉挛患者中,93.4%(61/65)为符合CAS的典型心绞痛。高剂量乙酰胆碱的敏感性显著提高(98%对87%,P=0.008),但特异性降低的趋势不显著(80%对95%,P=0.08)。高剂量组阴性预测值较高(94%比70%,P=0.01),阳性预测值相近(93%比98%,P=0.12)。结论:大剂量乙酰胆碱激发可提高ANOCA患者CAS的检出率,但可能增加过度诊断的风险。该方法应保留给临床高度怀疑CAS的患者,并在更广泛的临床背景下解释结果。
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
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
1.80%
发文量
221
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, an American Heart Association journal, focuses on interventional techniques pertaining to coronary artery disease, structural heart disease, and vascular disease, with priority placed on original research and on randomized trials and large registry studies. In addition, pharmacological, diagnostic, and pathophysiological aspects of interventional cardiology are given special attention in this online-only journal.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信