000			04718nam a22007457a 4500
008			240723s20242024 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a1522-1946
040			_aOvid MEDLINE(R)
099			_a38520176
245			_aCoronary microvascular dysfunction assessment: A comparative analysis of procedural aspects.
251			_aCatheterization & Cardiovascular Interventions. 103(5):703-709, 2024 Apr.
252			_aCatheter Cardiovasc Interv. 103(5):703-709, 2024 Apr.
253			_aCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
260			_c2024
260			_p2024 Apr
260			_fFY2024
265			_sppublish
265			_tMEDLINE
501			_aAvailable online from MWHC library: 1996 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1996 - 2006
520			_aBACKGROUND: Full adoption of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) assessment faces challenges due to its invasive nature and concerns about prolonged procedure time and increased contrast and/or radiation exposure. We compared procedural aspects of CMD invasive assessment to diagnostic left heart catheterization (DLHC) in patients with chest pain who were not found to have obstructive coronary artery disease.
520			_aCONCLUSION: Compared to DLHC, CMD assessment is safe and requires only slightly additional contrast use (10 mL) and slightly longer fluoroscopy time (2 min) without clinical implications. These findings emphasize the favorable safety and feasibility of invasive CMD assessment. Copyright © 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
520			_aMETHODS: A total of 227 patients in the Coronary Microvascular Disease Registry were compared to 1592 patients who underwent DLHC from August 2021 to November 2023. The two cohorts were compared using propensity-score matching; primary outcomes were fluoroscopy time and total contrast use.
520			_aRESULTS: The participants' mean age was 64.1 +/- 12.6 years. CMD-assessed patients were more likely to be female (66.5% vs. 45.2%, p < 0.001) and have hypertension (80.2% vs. 44.5%, p < 0.001), history of stroke (11.9% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.002), and history of myocardial infarction (20.3% vs. 7.7%, p < 0.001). CMD assessment was safe, without any reported adverse outcomes. A propensity-matched analysis showed that patients who underwent CMD assessment had slightly higher median contrast exposure (50 vs. 40 mL, p < 0.001), and slightly longer fluoroscopy time (6.9 vs. 4.7 min, p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in radiation dose (209.3 vs. 219 mGy, p = 0.58) and overall procedure time (31 vs. 29 min, p = 0.37).
546			_aEnglish
650			_a*Coronary Artery Disease
650			_a*Microvascular Angina
650			_a*Myocardial Infarction
650			_a*Myocardial Ischemia
650			_aAged
650			_aCoronary Artery Disease/dg [Diagnostic Imaging]
650			_aCoronary Artery Disease/th [Therapy]
650			_aCoronary Circulation
650			_aCoronary Vessels/dg [Diagnostic Imaging]
650			_aFemale
650			_aHumans
650			_aMale
650			_aMicrocirculation
650			_aMicrovascular Angina/di [Diagnosis]
650			_aMiddle Aged
650			_aTreatment Outcome
650			_zAutomated
651			_aMedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
651			_aMedStar Washington Hospital Center
656			_aAdvanced Cardiac Catheterization Research Fellowship
656			_aCardiovascular Disease Fellowship
657			_aJournal Article
700			_aBanerjee, AvantikabMHVI
700			_aBen-Dor, Itsik _bMHVI
700			_aCase, Brian C _bMHVI
700			_aCellamare, Matteo _bMHVI
700			_aHashim, Hayder _bMHVI
700			_aLopez, KassandrabMHVI
700			_aMerdler, Ilan _bMHVI
700			_aOzturk, Sevket Tolga _bMHVI
700			_aReddy, Pavan _bMWHC _cAdvanced Cardiac Catheterization Research Fellowship _dMD
700			_aSawant, Vaishnavi _bMHVI
700			_aWaksman, Ron _bMHVI
700			_aWallace, Ryan _bMWHC _cCardiovascular Disease Fellowship _dMD
700			_aZhang, Cheng _bMHVI
790			_aMerdler I, Wallace R, Banerjee A, Medranda GA, Reddy P, Cellamare M, Zhang C, Ozturk ST, Sawant V, Lopez K, Ben-Dor I, Waksman R, Case BC, Hashim HD
856			_uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30990 _zhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30990
858			_yWaksman, Ron _uhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-4063-9226 _zhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-4063-9226 _zhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-3662-2832
858			_yWallace, Ryan _uhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-3662-2832 _zhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-4063-9226 _zhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-3662-2832
942			_cART _dArticle
999			_c14305 _d14305