4.8 Article

Endothelial function predicts future development of coronary artery disease - A study of women with chest pain and normal coronary angiograms

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 109, 期 21, 页码 2518-2523

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000128208.22378.E3

关键词

acetylcholine; angina; endothelium; prognosis; women

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background - The prognosis for women with chest pain and angiographically normal coronary arteries is believed to be totally benign. Previous studies, however, did not account for the delay of a decade or so in the development of coronary artery disease that women may experience. Methods and Results - This study assessed long-term follow-up of 42 women with de novo angina, evidence of reversible myocardial perfusion defects on SPECT, and normal coronary angiograms. At recruitment, all women underwent endothelial function testing (intracoronary acetylcholine) during catheterization. Patients were followed up for > 10 years. Angiography was repeated at the end of the follow-up in 37 patients. At recruitment, 22 patients developed diffuse vasoconstriction during acetylcholine in the absence of identifiable focal coronary spasm (acetylcholine-positive group). The remaining 20 patients showed vasodilation (acetylcholine-negative group). At the end of follow-up, in the acetylcholine-positive group, 1 patient developed cardiac death, 13 still complained of chest pain, and 8 had remission of symptoms. In the acetylcholine-negative group, all patients showed complete resolution of chest pain beginning 6 to 36 months after baseline assessment. Angiography showed development of coronary artery disease in the 13 symptomatic patients in the acetylcholine-positive group. Conclusions - In women with angiographically normal-appearing coronary arteries, persistence of chest pain over the years often relates to development of coronary artery disease. Endothelial dysfunction in a setting of normal coronary arteries is a sign of future development of atherosclerosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据