4.4 Review

Microvascular Coronary Dysfunction in Women-Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management

期刊

CURRENT PROBLEMS IN CARDIOLOGY
卷 36, 期 8, 页码 291-318

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2011.05.002

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institutes [N01-HV-68161, N01-HV-68162, N01-HV-68163, N01-HV-68164]
  2. National Center for Research Resources [M01-RR00425]
  3. Gustavus and Louis Pfeiffer Research Foundation, Denville, NJ
  4. Women's Guild of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
  5. Ladies Hospital Aid Society of Western Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, PA
  6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Women exhibit a greater symptom burden, more functional disability, and a higher prevalence of no obstructive coronary artery disease compared to men when evaluated for signs and symptoms of myocardial ischemia. Microvascular coronary dysfunction (MCD), defined as limited coronary flow reserve and/or coronary endothelial dysfunction, is the predominant etiologic mechanism of ischemia in women with the triad of persistent chest pain, no obstructive coronary artery disease, and ischemia evidenced by stress testing. Evidence shows that approximately 50% of these patients have physiological evidence of MCD. MCD is associated with a 2.5% annual major adverse event rate that includes death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and congestive heart failure. Although tests such as adenosine stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging may be a useful noninvasive method to predict subendocardial ischemia, the gold standard test to diagnose MCD is an invasive coronary reactivity testing. Early identification of MCD by coronary reactivity testing may be beneficial in prognostication and stratifying these patients for optimal medical therapy. Currently, understanding of MCD pathophysiology can be used to guide diagnosis and therapy. Continued research in MCD is needed to further advance our understanding. (Curr Probl Cardiol 2011;36:291-318.)

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

4.4
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