Berry, Colin

Abstract Background and Aims Invasive coronary function testing (CFT) identifies coronary vasomotor disorders in up to 90% of patients with angina with non-obstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA). The ILIAS ANOCA trial hypothesized that routine ad hoc CFT would be feasible, safe, and effective in providing an early, comprehensive diagnosis. Additionally, it was anticipated that combining CFT with a disease-specific treatment protocol would significantly improve quality of life in ANOCA patients compared with standard care. Methods After excluding patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) during clinically indicated invasive coronary angiography (ICA), eligible patients underwent CFT and were randomized to either the standard care group, where CFT results remained blinded, or the intervention group, where CFT results were disclosed along with a tailored medical therapy protocol. The primary outcome was the mean difference in the within-subject change in Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score (SAQSS) between groups from baseline to a follow-up of 6 months. The trial is registered with the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (NL-OMON20739). Results A total of 255 patients consented, of whom 153 patients (60%) without CAD underwent CFT and were randomized 1:1 to the standard care (n = 76) or intervention group (n = 77). All CFT procedures were successful without adverse events. A vasomotor disorder was identified in 120 patients (78%). At 6-month follow-up, the SAQSS improved significantly in the intervention group compared with the control group, with an intervention effect of 9.4 units (95% confidence interval 3.9–14.9, P = .001). There were no major adverse cardiac events at the 6-month follow-up. Conclusions Routine CFT during the initial ICA was feasible, safe, and had high diagnostic yield. Implementing a pragmatic CFT protocol combined with a disease-specific treatment protocol significantly improved disease-related quality of life in patients with ANOCA compared with standard care.

Abstract The pharmacological provocation test is a pivotal tool in cardiac electrophysiology for the diagnosis of potential causes of sudden cardiac death, sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), arrhythmias, symptoms, or ECG abnormalities. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the Treatment of Ventricular Arrhythmias and Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death offered guidance on provocation testing but did not describe the indications and requirements in depth. This clinical consensus statement, led by the European Heart Rhythm Association and approved by major international stakeholders, aims to advise the general cardiologist and the arrhythmia expert who to test and when, where, and how to do it. The statement focuses on current practice for the diagnosis of subclinical arrhythmia syndromes and the causes of SCA, building upon the recommendations of the Guidelines. We address the sodium channel blocker provocation test for patients suspected of Brugada syndrome as well as the use of epinephrine, isoproterenol, adenosine, ergonovine, and acetylcholine.

Aims Guidelines for suspected cardiac chest pain have used historical risk stratification tools, advocating invasive coronary angiography (ICA) first-line in those at highest risk. We aimed to determine whether different strategies to manage suspected stable angina affected medium-term cardiovascular event rates and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) measures. Methods CE-MARC 2, a three-arm parallel group trial, randomised patients with suspected stable cardiac chest pain and a Duke Clinical pretest likelihood of coronary artery disease between 10% and 90%. Patients were randomised to either first-line cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) or the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) CG95 (2010) guidelines-directed care. For the three arms, 1-year and 3-year first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rates and QoL assessed by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, Short Form 12 (V.12) Questionnaire and EuroQol-5 Dimension Questionnaire were recorded. Results 1202 patients were randomised to CMR (n=481), SPECT (n=481) and NICE (n=240). Forty-two patients (18 CMR, 18 SPECT, 6 NICE) experienced one or more MACEs. The percentage rates (95% CIs) of MACE in the CMR, SPECT and NICE groups at 3 years were 3.7% (2.4%, 5.8%), 3.7% (2.4%, 5.8%) and 2.1% (0.9%, 4.8%), respectively. QoL scores did not significantly differ across domains. Conclusion Despite a fourfold increase in referrals for ICA, the NICE CG95 (2010) guidelines risk-stratified care strategy did not significantly reduce 3-year MACE or improve QoL, as compared with functional imaging with CMR or SPECT. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT01664858).

Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of management strategies for patients presenting with chest pain and suspected coronary heart disease (CHD): (1) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR); (2) myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS); and (3) UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline-guided care. Methods Using UK data for 1202 patients from the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease 2 trial, we conducted an economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness of CMR, MPS and NICE guidelines. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs reflected UK pound sterling in 2016–2017. Cost-effectiveness results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental net health benefits overall and for low, medium and high pretest likelihood of CHD subgroups. Results CMR had the highest estimated QALY gain overall (2.21 (95% credible interval 2.15, 2.26) compared with 2.07 (1.92, 2.20) for NICE and 2.11 (2.01, 2.22) for MPS) and incurred comparable costs (overall £1625 (£1431, £1824) compared with £1753 (£1473, £2032) for NICE and £1768 (£1572, £1989) for MPS). Overall, CMR was the cost-effective strategy, being the dominant strategy (more effective, less costly) with incremental net health benefits per patient of 0.146 QALYs (−0.18, 0.406) compared with NICE guidelines at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £15 000 per QALY (93% probability of cost-effectiveness). Results were similar in the pretest likelihood subgroups. Conclusions CMR-guided care is cost-effective overall and across all pretest likelihood subgroups, compared with MPS and NICE guidelines.