Safety and Usefulness of Intracoronary Acetylcholine 200 μg Into the Left Coronary Artery as Vasoreactivity Testing: Comparisons With Intracoronary Acetylcholine Maximum 100 μg

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-10-02 DOI:10.1002/clc.70001
Shozo Sueda, Yutaka Hayashi, Hiroki Ono, Tomoki Sakaue, Shuntaro Ikeda
{"title":"Safety and Usefulness of Intracoronary Acetylcholine 200 μg Into the Left Coronary Artery as Vasoreactivity Testing: Comparisons With Intracoronary Acetylcholine Maximum 100 μg","authors":"Shozo Sueda,&nbsp;Yutaka Hayashi,&nbsp;Hiroki Ono,&nbsp;Tomoki Sakaue,&nbsp;Shuntaro Ikeda","doi":"10.1002/clc.70001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>We retrospectively analyzed the usefulness and safety of intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) 200 μg into the left coronary artery (LCA) as vasoreactivity testing compared with intracoronary ACh 100 μg.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We recruited 1433 patients who had angina-like chest pain and intracoronary ACh testing in the LCA, including 1234 patients with a maximum ACh 100 μg and 199 patients with a maximum ACh 200 μg. ACh was injected in incremental doses of 20/50/100/200 μg into the LCA. Positive spasm was defined as ≥ 90% stenosis, usual chest pain, and ischemic electrocardiogram (ECG) changes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The incidence of coronary constriction ≥ 90%, usual chest pain, and ischemic ECG changes with a maximum ACh of 100 μg was markedly higher than that with a maximum ACh of 200 μg. The frequency of unusual chest pain in patients with a maximum ACh of 200 μg was higher than that in those with a maximum ACh of 100 μg (13% vs. 3%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). In patients with rest angina, positive spasm of maximum ACh 100 μg was significantly higher than that of maximum ACh 200 μg, whereas there was no difference regarding positive spasm in patients with atypical chest pain between the two ACh doses. Major complications (1.38% vs. 1.51%, <i>p</i> = 0.8565) and the occurrence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (1.81% vs. 2.63%, <i>p</i> = 0.6307) during ACh testing in the LCA were not different between the two maximum ACH doses.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Intracoronary ACh 200 μg into the LCA is clinically useful and safe for vasoreactivity testing when intracoronary ACh 100 μg dose not provoke spasms.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11445603/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clc.70001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

We retrospectively analyzed the usefulness and safety of intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) 200 μg into the left coronary artery (LCA) as vasoreactivity testing compared with intracoronary ACh 100 μg.

Methods

We recruited 1433 patients who had angina-like chest pain and intracoronary ACh testing in the LCA, including 1234 patients with a maximum ACh 100 μg and 199 patients with a maximum ACh 200 μg. ACh was injected in incremental doses of 20/50/100/200 μg into the LCA. Positive spasm was defined as ≥ 90% stenosis, usual chest pain, and ischemic electrocardiogram (ECG) changes.

Results

The incidence of coronary constriction ≥ 90%, usual chest pain, and ischemic ECG changes with a maximum ACh of 100 μg was markedly higher than that with a maximum ACh of 200 μg. The frequency of unusual chest pain in patients with a maximum ACh of 200 μg was higher than that in those with a maximum ACh of 100 μg (13% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). In patients with rest angina, positive spasm of maximum ACh 100 μg was significantly higher than that of maximum ACh 200 μg, whereas there was no difference regarding positive spasm in patients with atypical chest pain between the two ACh doses. Major complications (1.38% vs. 1.51%, p = 0.8565) and the occurrence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (1.81% vs. 2.63%, p = 0.6307) during ACh testing in the LCA were not different between the two maximum ACH doses.

Conclusions

Intracoronary ACh 200 μg into the LCA is clinically useful and safe for vasoreactivity testing when intracoronary ACh 100 μg dose not provoke spasms.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
冠状动脉内乙酰胆碱 200 μg 进入左冠状动脉作为血管活性测试的安全性和实用性:与冠状动脉内乙酰胆碱最大值 100 μg 的比较。
目的:我们回顾性分析了左冠状动脉(LCA)冠状动脉内乙酰胆碱(ACh)200 μg与冠状动脉内ACh 100 μg作为血管活性测试的有用性和安全性:我们招募了 1433 名有心绞痛样胸痛并在 LCA 进行冠脉内 ACh 测试的患者,其中 1234 名患者的 ACh 最大值为 100 μg,199 名患者的 ACh 最大值为 200 μg。ACh 以 20/50/100/200 μg 的递增剂量注入 LCA。狭窄≥90%、常见胸痛和缺血性心电图(ECG)改变即为阳性痉挛:最大 ACh 值为 100 μg 时,冠状动脉收缩≥90%、常见胸痛和缺血性心电图变化的发生率明显高于最大 ACh 值为 200 μg 时。最大 ACh 值为 200 μg 的患者出现异常胸痛的频率高于最大 ACh 值为 100 μg 的患者(13% 对 3%,P,结论):当冠状动脉内 ACh 100 μg 剂量不会引起痉挛时,冠状动脉内 ACh 200 μg 进入 LCA 对血管活性测试具有临床实用性和安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1