MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Clinical implications of non-hyperemic pressure ratio and change in Pd/Pa to evaluate coronary microvascular dysfunction in patients with angina and non-obstructive coronary arteries

2025· article· en· W7127580775 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kota Murai, Y Kataoka, Yoshiyuki Tomishima, Takamasa Iwai, K Sawada, Hideo Matama, S Honda, M Fujino, Shuichi Yoneda, Kazuwa Nakao, K Takagi, F Otsuka, Y Asaumi, T Noguchi

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronary flow reserveFractional flow reserveReactive hyperemiaAnginaCoronary arteriesStenosisCoronary circulationCanadian Cardiovascular Society

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background A reduced coronary flow reserve (CFR) in patients with angina and non-obstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA) harbors coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD). Recent studies classify CMD into structural and functional subtypes based on an IMR threshold of ≥25 or <25mmHg·sec. Given its phenotypic variations, clinical needs exist to develop a better approach for evaluating phenotypes of CMD. The wire-based non-hyperemic pressure ratio (NHPR) has been reported to correlate with CFR. Additionally, we reported change in Pd/Pa during hyperemia [(Pd/Pa at rest – Pd/Pa at hyperemia (=fractional flow reserve, FFR)] as a novel measure associated with microvascular reactivity. We hypothesized that these two measures may help differentiate CMD subtypes in ANOCA. Purpose To evaluate the association of NHPR and change in Pd/Pa with CMD phenotypes in ANOCA. Methods The current study investigated 112 patients with anginal chest pain. Pressure-wire was used to measure coronary physiological indices (CFR, IMR, NHPR, FFR, and the change in Pd/Pa) in 112 coronary arteries with <50% stenosis (LAD/non-LAD=108/4) (Figure 1). Clinical characteristics and physiological indices were compared in subjects stratified into CMD and non-CMD groups according to a CFR threshold of <2.5 or ≥2.5. Results 34% (=38/112) of study subjects presented CMD, including 6 structural and 32 functional CMD (Figure 1). Patients with CMD were more likely to be female (58% vs. 38%, P=0.04) with a greater frequency of ACS (37% vs. 15%, P=0.008) and hypertension (87% vs. 66%, P=0.02). On physiological analysis, patients with CMD exhibited lower NHPR (0.88 vs. 0.92, P<0.001) and CFR (1.6 vs. 4.7, P<0.001) but higher IMR (17.9 vs. 11.8 mmHg·sec, P=0.02), whereas the change in Pd/Pa was similar (0.08 vs. 0.08, P=0.80). (Table 1). Multivariable analysis demonstrated NHPR (OR=1.25, 95%CI=1.10-1.42, P<0.001) and female (OR=2.84, 95%CI=1.12-7.20, P=0.03) as independent factors associated with CFR<2.5 (Table 2A). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed NHPR≤0.89 optimally predicted CFR<2.5 (AUC=0.74, P<0.001, sensitivity=78%, specificity=62%) and was more prevalent in functional CMD (P<0.001, Figure 3A). Further analysis identified change in Pd/Pa as an independent predictor of IMR≥25mmHg·sec (OR=1.24, 95% CI=1.02–1.51, P=0.04) (Table 2B). ROC analysis showed change in Pd/Pa≤0.08 as an optimal cut-off value to predict IMR≥25mmHg·sec (AUC=0.69, P=0.03, sensitivity=36%, specificity=100%). In contrast to NHPR, a greater frequency of change in Pd/Pa≤0.08 was observed in patients with structural than functional CMD (Figure 3B). Conclusion In ANOCA patients, reduced NHPR was a potential physiological measure of CMD, especially in functional CMD. In contrast, structural CMD was characterized as a reduced change in Pd/Pa. These observations indicate NHPR and change in Pd/Pa as potential measures to stratify CMD and then select optimal therapeutic management in the setting of ANOCA.Figure 1 and Table 1 Table 2 and Figure 2

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→