[Methergin pour le diagnostic de l'angor spastique : voie intraveineuse ou intracoronaire ?]

BACKGROUND

Vasospastic angina is an infrequent underlying cause of angina and is under-diagnosed. Ergonovine provocation tests can be performed via intravenous or intracoronary injections. Although the safety profile of intracoronary injection has been well documented, no study has yet compared the intracoronary and intravenous injections regarding the positivity rate of the test.

AIMS

This study sought to compare the positivity rate of intravenous versus intracoronary injection of ergonovine in the diagnosis of vasospastic angina.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and February 2018, 427 patients with suspected vasospastic angina underwent an ergonovine provocation test in 2 tertiary hospitals in France and were retrospectively included in this study. Injection was performed via the intravenous or the intracoronary route. The primary endpoint was the positivity rate of the test. Propensity score matching was used to account for confounding factors.

RESULTS

427 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 60.3 (+/- 12.4) years. There were 247 (58%) females and 97 (23%) smokers. The intracoronary route was used in 199 (47%) patients. The indication for the test was acute coronary syndrome for 121 (28%). No rhythmic complications or deaths were reported. After propensity-matching, the baseline characteristics of the 2 groups (148 patients in each) were comparable. The positivity rate was 24% in the intracoronary group and 9% in the intravenous group (OR [95%CI]: 3.2 [1.6, 6.4]).

CONCLUSIONS

Intracoronary injection of ergonovine is safe and associated with a positivity rate of the test three times higher compared to intravenous injection.

Recurrent ST segment elevations in a patient with asymptomatic early repolarization during head and neck surgery: implications of vasospastic angina

A 57-year-old woman scheduled for cochlear implant removal exhibited preoperative electrocardiographic findings of early repolarization (ER). Four episodes of transient ST segment elevations during surgery raised suspicion for vasospastic angina (VA). In the post-anesthetic care unit, the patient complained of chest discomfort and received sublingual nitroglycerin with uncertain effect. The patient refused to proceed with postoperative invasive coronary angiography, resulting in inconclusive diagnosis. Intraoperative circumstances limit the diagnosis of VA, which emphasizes the need for further testing to confirm the diagnosis. When VA is suspected in patients with underlying ER, it is reasonable to consider invasive examination to establish the diagnosis and prevent recurrence of VA. If ST changes are observed during surgery in patients with preoperative ER, careful monitoring is recommended. Due to general anesthesia, the absence of patient symptoms limits the definitive diagnosis of those with suspected VA. Therefore, additional postoperative surveillance is recommended.

Uric Acid Level Has a U-shaped Association with Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Vasospastic Angina

No data are available on the association of serum uric acid and vasospastic angina (VSA) which has endothelial dysfunction as a possible pathophysiologic mechanism. Low uric acid level might cause adverse outcomes in VSA in connection with endothelial dysfunction. We enrolled 818 VSA patients whose uric acid level was measured at admission. Patients were categorized according to tertiles of uric acid level: group I, ≤ 4.8 mg/dL; group II, 4.9-5.9 mg/dL; and group III, ≥ 6.0 mg/dL. Primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as a composite of cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, coronary revascularization, and rehospitalization for angina. Median follow-up duration was 49.2 months. Median uric acid values were 4.1 mg/dL for group I, 5.4 mg/dL for group II, and 6.7 mg/dL for group III. In the overall population, group II had a significantly lower incidence of MACE compared to group I (47 [17.1%] vs. 66 [24.6%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-2.26; P = 0.040) and a tendency of lower incidence of MACEs compared to Group III (47 [17.1%] vs. 62 [22.5%]; HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.98-2.13; P = 0.067). Among group I patients, those who received nitrates had a higher incidence of MACEs than those without nitrate therapy (P < 0.001). Low uric acid level was associated with adverse clinical outcomes, while high uric acid level had a trend toward an increase in it. Use of nitrate in patients with low uric acid level might have adverse effects on clinical outcomes of VSA.