Do We Need Ischemia Testing to Monitor Asymptomatic Patients With Chronic Coronary Syndromes?

Global and regional myocardial function assessment in symptomatic patients with chronic coronary syndrome using longitudinal strain and noninvasive myocardial work

Speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) derived longitudinal strain (LS) and noninvasive pressure-strain loop (PSL) derived myocardial work (MW) are more sensitive than conventional echocardiographic parameters in quantitative assessment of early myocardial dysfunction. The aim of this study was to assess left ventricular (LV) global and regional myocardial function in symptomatic chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients using the two promising methods. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed on patients with angina or equivalent symptoms before coronary angiography. STE-based LS and PSL-based MW analysis were carried out on each patient for global and regional myocardial function assessment. A total of 102 patients were classified into significant and nonsignificant coronary artery stenosis (CAS) groups. Among global myocardial function parameters, LS had the biggest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.735, with cutoff value of 18.4% (sensitivity, 79.6%; specificity, 72.9%), but remained statistically alike with all MW indices in predicting significant CAS (P>0.05 for all). Among regional myocardial function parameters, both LS and MW indices had predictive value for significant left anterior descending artery (LAD) or left circumflex artery (LCX) stenosis, while only myocardial work efficiency (MWE) for right coronary artery (RCA) stenosis. Both global and regional LS and MW have predictive value for significant CAS, but their value of regionalized assessment varies with specific coronary artery involvement.

Percutaneous coronary intervention from COURAGE to ISCHEMIA and beyond

Multiple randomized clinical trials and observational studies in patients with chronic coronary artery disease have evaluated whether revascularization, in particular PCI, can reduce the incidence of future cardiovascular events and relieve angina. Perhaps the two most widely quoted trials are COURAGE and ISCHEMIA. In both trials revascularization did not reduce the incidence of cardiovascular death or non-fatal events. In both, revascularization did relieve angina, particularly in patients with severe pain. From the time of COURAGE to ISCHEMIA there were also multiple developments. In particular improved stent technology with second and third generation drug eluting stents in ISCHEMIA compared to bare metal stents in COURAGE. There was also the development of new methods to evaluate ischemia, in particular the potential surrogate fractional flow reserve. This period also saw improvement and maturation of coronary computed tomography angiography to assess coronary anatomy non-invasively. There was also greater emphasis on more intensive, guideline directed medical therapy to treat dyslipidemia and hypertension. There has also been greater recognition that not all angina is due to epicardial obstructive disease. Microvascular disease and coronary spasm are responsible for much of the symptom burden of ischemia. These data have led to a paradigm shift toward a more nuanced approach to treating stable ischemic heart disease, with less need for revascularization except in cases of particularly severe anatomic disease or unremitting symptoms while on optimal medial therapy. In recognition of the importance of disparities in cardiovascular health, it is crucial to implement preventive strategies with optimal medical therapy in the community.