Coronary vasospasm and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with isolated myocardial bridging: A retrospective study.

Cardiology journal Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-20 DOI:10.5603/cj.99129
Yeon Heo, Seok Oh, Kyung Hoon Cho, Min Chul Kim, Doo Sun Sim, Young Joon Hong, Ju Han Kim, Youngkeun Ahn, Myung Ho Jeong
{"title":"Coronary vasospasm and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with isolated myocardial bridging: A retrospective study.","authors":"Yeon Heo, Seok Oh, Kyung Hoon Cho, Min Chul Kim, Doo Sun Sim, Young Joon Hong, Ju Han Kim, Youngkeun Ahn, Myung Ho Jeong","doi":"10.5603/cj.99129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mounting evidence suggests an associated between myocardial bridging (MB) and coronary vasospasm (CVS); however, no consensus has been established on whether CVS worsens clinical outcomes in patients with MB. Therefore, this retrospective study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes in patients with MB based on CVS presence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study enrolled 254 consecutive patients with MB undergoing provocative testing for coronary reactivity between January 1, 2009 and December 30, 2015, and stratified them into 2 groups: (a) group A (with CVS, n = 168); and (b) group B (without CVS, n = 86). The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), a composite of cardiac death, cardiac arrest, non-fatal myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, ischemia-driven coronary angiography, and ischemia-related hospitalization. Diverse Cox models were used to determine whether CVS independently influenced MACE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of study participants was 50.8 years, and 60.2% of them were male. The median follow-up period was 8.15 years. The rate of MACE was 35.1% and 26.7% in groups A and B, respectively. Group A had a significantly higher risk of MACE than group B (the reference group) in model 3 (hazard ratio [HR]:1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.12-3.29) and model 4 (adjusted HR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.04-3.59).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The presence of CVS adversely affects clinical outcomes in patients with MB. Further prospective clinical studies are required to confirm this association.</p>","PeriodicalId":93923,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology journal","volume":" ","pages":"814-822"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11706257/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/cj.99129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mounting evidence suggests an associated between myocardial bridging (MB) and coronary vasospasm (CVS); however, no consensus has been established on whether CVS worsens clinical outcomes in patients with MB. Therefore, this retrospective study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes in patients with MB based on CVS presence.

Methods: This retrospective study enrolled 254 consecutive patients with MB undergoing provocative testing for coronary reactivity between January 1, 2009 and December 30, 2015, and stratified them into 2 groups: (a) group A (with CVS, n = 168); and (b) group B (without CVS, n = 86). The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), a composite of cardiac death, cardiac arrest, non-fatal myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, ischemia-driven coronary angiography, and ischemia-related hospitalization. Diverse Cox models were used to determine whether CVS independently influenced MACE.

Results: The mean age of study participants was 50.8 years, and 60.2% of them were male. The median follow-up period was 8.15 years. The rate of MACE was 35.1% and 26.7% in groups A and B, respectively. Group A had a significantly higher risk of MACE than group B (the reference group) in model 3 (hazard ratio [HR]:1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.12-3.29) and model 4 (adjusted HR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.04-3.59).

Conclusions: The presence of CVS adversely affects clinical outcomes in patients with MB. Further prospective clinical studies are required to confirm this association.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
孤立性心肌桥接患者的冠状动脉血管痉挛和心血管预后:回顾性研究
背景:越来越多的证据表明,心肌桥接(MB)与冠状动脉血管痉挛(CVS)之间存在关联;然而,关于CVS是否会恶化MB患者的临床预后,尚未达成共识。因此,这项回顾性研究旨在根据是否存在 CVS 比较 MB 患者的长期临床预后:这项回顾性研究在2009年1月1日至2015年12月30日期间连续招募了254名接受冠状动脉反应性诱导检测的MB患者,并将他们分为两组:(a) A组(有CVS,n = 168);(b) B组(无CVS,n = 86)。主要终点是主要不良心血管事件(MACEs),即心源性死亡、心脏骤停、非致死性心肌梗死、缺血导致的血管重建、缺血导致的冠状动脉造影术和缺血相关住院的综合结果。研究人员使用不同的 Cox 模型来确定 CVS 是否会对 MACE 产生独立影响:研究参与者的平均年龄为 50.8 岁,60.2% 为男性。中位随访时间为 8.15 年。A组和B组的MACE发生率分别为35.1%和26.7%。在模型3(危险比[HR]:1.92;95%置信区间[CI]:1.12-3.29)和模型4(调整后的HR:1.94;95%置信区间[CI]:1.04-3.59)中,A组发生MACE的风险明显高于B组(参照组):结论:CVS的存在会对MB患者的临床预后产生不利影响。结论:CVS 的存在会对 MB 患者的临床预后产生不利影响,需要进一步的前瞻性临床研究来证实这种关联。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparisons of three-year outcomes according to the degree of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with myocardial infarction with non-ST-segment elevation with and without chronic kidney disease. Technologies in minimally invasive treatment of severe mitral regurgitation. Domain-specific knowledge on salt-related health risks and medical professional identity: Implications for cardi-ovascular prevention. Lipid-lowering therapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia in terms of the POLSCORE and SCORE2 scales. A single-center retrospective analysis. Diagnostic performance of angiography-derived IMR for coronary microcirculation disease assessment in INOCA patients.
×
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:604180095
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