Published in

American Heart Association, Circulation: Heart Failure, 1(17), 2024

DOI: 10.1161/circheartfailure.123.010805

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction in Patients With Heart Failure: Characterization of Patterns in HFrEF Versus HFpEF

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is involved in heart failure (HF) onset and progression, independently of HF phenotype and obstructive coronary artery disease. Invasive assessment of CMD might provide insights into phenotyping and prognosis of patients with HF. We aimed to assess absolute coronary flow, absolute microvascular resistance, myocardial perfusion, coronary flow reserve, and microvascular resistance reserve in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: Single-center, prospective study of 56 consecutive patients with de novo HF with nonobstructive coronary artery disease divided into HF with preserved ejection fraction (n=21) and HFrEF (n=35). CMD was invasively assessed by continuous intracoronary thermodilution and defined as coronary flow reserve <2.5. Left ventricular and left anterior descending artery–related myocardial mass was quantified by echocardiography and coronary computed tomography angiography. Myocardial perfusion (mL/min per g) was calculated as the ratio between absolute coronary flow and left anterior descending artery–related mass. RESULTS: Patients with HFrEF showed a higher left ventricular and left anterior descending artery–related myocardial mass compared with HF with preserved ejection fraction ( P <0.010). Overall, 52% of the study population had CMD, with a similar prevalence between the 2 groups. In HFrEF, CMD was characterized by lower absolute microvascular resistance and higher absolute coronary flow at rest (functional CMD; P =0.002). CMD was an independent predictor of a lower rate of left ventricular reverse remodeling at follow-up. In patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction, CMD was mainly due to higher absolute microvascular resistance and lower absolute coronary flow during hyperemia (structural CMD; P ≤0.030). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous intracoronary thermodilution allows the definition and characterization of patterns with distinct CMD in patients with HF and could identify patients with HFrEF with a higher rate of left ventricular reverse remodeling at follow-up.