Implementation of Microcirculation Examination in Clinical Practice—Insights from the Nationwide POL-MKW Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The assessment of coronary microcirculation may facilitate risk stratification and treatment adjustment. The aim of this study was to evaluate patients’ clinical presentation and treatment following coronary microcirculation assessment, as well as factors associated with an abnormal coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) values. Materials and Results: This retrospective analysis included 223 patients gathered from the national registry of invasive coronary microvascular testing collected between 2018 and 2023. Results: The frequency of coronary microcirculatory assessments in Poland has steadily increased since 2018. Patients with impaired IMR (≥25) were less burdened with comorbidities. Patients with normal IMR underwent revascularisation attempts more frequently (11.9% vs. 29.8%, p = 0.003). After microcirculation testing, calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were added more often for patients with IMR and CFR abnormalities, respectively, as compared to control groups. Moreover, patients with coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD, defined as CFR and/or IMR abnormality), regardless of treatment choice following microcirculation assessment, were provided with trimetazidine (23.2%) and dihydropyridine CCBs (26.4%) more frequently than those without CMD who were treated conservatively (6.8%) and by revascularisation (4.2% with p = 0.002 and 0% with p < 0.001, respectively). Multivariable analysis revealed no association between angina symptoms and IMR or CFR impairment. Conclusions: The frequency of coronary microcirculatory assessments in Poland has steadily increased. Angina symptoms were not associated with either IMR or CFR impairment. After microcirculation assessment, patients with impaired microcirculation, expressed as either low CFR, high IMR or both, received additional pharmacotherapy treatment more often.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".