冠状动脉内乙酰胆碱激发试验诊断标准对临床特征和结果的差异影响。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Circulation Journal Pub Date : 2025-07-25 Epub Date: 2025-06-12 DOI:10.1253/circj.CJ-25-0172
Yoshiyuki Ohnaga, Yuichi Saito, Ken Kato, Kazuya Tateishi, Hideki Kitahara, Yoshio Kobayashi
{"title":"冠状动脉内乙酰胆碱激发试验诊断标准对临床特征和结果的差异影响。","authors":"Yoshiyuki Ohnaga, Yuichi Saito, Ken Kato, Kazuya Tateishi, Hideki Kitahara, Yoshio Kobayashi","doi":"10.1253/circj.CJ-25-0172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) provocation testing is a guideline-recommended invasive standard for diagnosing vasospastic angina (VSA)/coronary spastic angina. A positive ACh test is usually defined as significant epicardial vasospasm accompanied by signs of ischemia, namely chest symptoms and/or electrocardiographic (ECG) changes. However, the differential impact of diagnostic ACh test criteria on clinical characteristics and outcomes is unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>From 2012 to 2024, 973 patients underwent ACh provocation testing for VSA diagnosis. Patients were divided into 3 groups: negative ACh test; and positive ACh test (2 groups), defined as significant epicardial vasospasm with either narrow (both chest symptoms and ECG changes) or broad (chest symptoms or ECG changes) definitions of signs of ischemia. Clinical characteristics and adverse outcomes during ACh testing and follow-up were compared among the 3 groups. In all, 356 (36.6%), 166 (17.1%), and 451 (46.4%) had positive ACh tests with narrow and broad definitions of ischemia and negative ACh tests, respectively. Among patients with positive ACh tests, there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics and adverse outcomes between those with narrow and broad definitions of ischemia.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients undergoing ACh provocation testing, there were no significant differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes between those diagnosed as having VSA using narrow and broad definitions of signs of ischemia, suggesting that either sign can be used as a criterion of ischemia.</p>","PeriodicalId":50691,"journal":{"name":"Circulation Journal","volume":" ","pages":"1087-1093"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differential Impact of Diagnostic Criteria of Intracoronary Acetylcholine Provocation Testing on Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Yoshiyuki Ohnaga, Yuichi Saito, Ken Kato, Kazuya Tateishi, Hideki Kitahara, Yoshio Kobayashi\",\"doi\":\"10.1253/circj.CJ-25-0172\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) provocation testing is a guideline-recommended invasive standard for diagnosing vasospastic angina (VSA)/coronary spastic angina. A positive ACh test is usually defined as significant epicardial vasospasm accompanied by signs of ischemia, namely chest symptoms and/or electrocardiographic (ECG) changes. However, the differential impact of diagnostic ACh test criteria on clinical characteristics and outcomes is unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>From 2012 to 2024, 973 patients underwent ACh provocation testing for VSA diagnosis. Patients were divided into 3 groups: negative ACh test; and positive ACh test (2 groups), defined as significant epicardial vasospasm with either narrow (both chest symptoms and ECG changes) or broad (chest symptoms or ECG changes) definitions of signs of ischemia. Clinical characteristics and adverse outcomes during ACh testing and follow-up were compared among the 3 groups. In all, 356 (36.6%), 166 (17.1%), and 451 (46.4%) had positive ACh tests with narrow and broad definitions of ischemia and negative ACh tests, respectively. Among patients with positive ACh tests, there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics and adverse outcomes between those with narrow and broad definitions of ischemia.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients undergoing ACh provocation testing, there were no significant differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes between those diagnosed as having VSA using narrow and broad definitions of signs of ischemia, suggesting that either sign can be used as a criterion of ischemia.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50691,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Circulation Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1087-1093\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Circulation Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-25-0172\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-25-0172","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:冠状动脉内乙酰胆碱(ACh)激发试验是指南推荐的诊断血管痉挛性心绞痛(VSA)/冠状动脉痉挛性心绞痛的侵入性标准。ACh检测阳性通常定义为明显的心外膜血管痉挛伴缺血征象,即胸部症状和/或心电图(ECG)改变。然而,诊断性乙酰胆碱检测标准对临床特征和结果的差异影响尚不清楚。方法与结果:2012 - 2024年,973例患者行乙酰胆碱激发试验诊断VSA。患者分为3组:乙酰胆碱检测阴性;ACh试验阳性(2组),定义为明显心外膜血管痉挛,伴有狭窄(胸部症状和心电图改变)或广泛(胸部症状或心电图改变)定义的缺血征象。比较三组患者乙酰胆碱检测及随访期间的临床特点及不良结局。其中,ACh阳性356例(36.6%),166例(17.1%),451例(46.4%),分别为狭义和广义缺血和ACh阴性。在乙酰胆碱检测阳性的患者中,狭义和广义缺血定义的患者在基线特征和不良结局方面没有显著差异。结论:在接受乙酰胆碱激发试验的患者中,使用狭义和广义的缺血征象定义诊断为VSA的患者的临床特征和结果没有显著差异,这表明任何一种征象都可以作为缺血的标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differential Impact of Diagnostic Criteria of Intracoronary Acetylcholine Provocation Testing on Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes.

Background: Intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) provocation testing is a guideline-recommended invasive standard for diagnosing vasospastic angina (VSA)/coronary spastic angina. A positive ACh test is usually defined as significant epicardial vasospasm accompanied by signs of ischemia, namely chest symptoms and/or electrocardiographic (ECG) changes. However, the differential impact of diagnostic ACh test criteria on clinical characteristics and outcomes is unclear.

Methods and results: From 2012 to 2024, 973 patients underwent ACh provocation testing for VSA diagnosis. Patients were divided into 3 groups: negative ACh test; and positive ACh test (2 groups), defined as significant epicardial vasospasm with either narrow (both chest symptoms and ECG changes) or broad (chest symptoms or ECG changes) definitions of signs of ischemia. Clinical characteristics and adverse outcomes during ACh testing and follow-up were compared among the 3 groups. In all, 356 (36.6%), 166 (17.1%), and 451 (46.4%) had positive ACh tests with narrow and broad definitions of ischemia and negative ACh tests, respectively. Among patients with positive ACh tests, there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics and adverse outcomes between those with narrow and broad definitions of ischemia.

Conclusions: In patients undergoing ACh provocation testing, there were no significant differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes between those diagnosed as having VSA using narrow and broad definitions of signs of ischemia, suggesting that either sign can be used as a criterion of ischemia.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Circulation Journal
Circulation Journal 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
12.10%
发文量
471
审稿时长
1.6 months
期刊介绍: Circulation publishes original research manuscripts, review articles, and other content related to cardiovascular health and disease, including observational studies, clinical trials, epidemiology, health services and outcomes studies, and advances in basic and translational research.
×
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