Sara, Jaskanwal D. S.

Background Studies have demonstrated an association between endothelial dysfunction and major depressive disorder (MDD). However, the link between coronary endothelial dysfunction (CED) and an incident diagnosis of MDD across sexes is unclear. Methods Patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease (stenosis <40%) underwent an invasive assessment of CED. Macrovascular CED was defined as a percentage change in coronary diameter in response to acetylcholine of ≤−10% compared with baseline. Microvascular CED was defined as a percentage change in coronary blood flow in response to acetylcholine of ≤−50% compared with baseline. In the period after the index procedure, patients were followed up for developing a diagnosis of MDD, and logistic regression was performed to assess the association between baseline CED and incident MDD. Results In total, 2280 patients underwent invasive testing for CED. A total of 516 patients (23%) underwent an evaluation for MDD at a date after the index procedure (mean±SD age, 53±12 years; 72% women). A total of 160 (31%) were diagnosed with MDD. The percentage change in coronary diameter in response to acetylcholine was lower in those diagnosed with MDD in all patients (−10.8% versus −5.3%; P =0.008), and in men (−19.0% versus −4.8%; P =0.001). In men, a higher proportion of those with macrovascular CED were diagnosed with MDD compared with those not diagnosed with MDD (59% versus 38%; P =0.035). In multivariable analyses, macrovascular CED was associated with MDD in men (odds ratio: 2.99 [95% CI, 1.26–7.45]; P =0.015). Conclusions Macrovascular CED is significantly associated with incident MDD in men with nonobstructive coronary artery disease. Endothelial dysfunction in the coronary arteries could thus be a helpful biomarker to identify patients at risk of MDD.

Background The study compared downstream coronary and conduit disease progression in the left anterior descending coronary artery treated with coronary artery bypass grafting using the left internal mammary artery ( LIMA ) versus percutaneous coronary intervention with bare metal stent ( BMS ) or drug eluting stent ( DES ). Methods and Results A total of 12 301 consecutive patients underwent isolated primary coronary revascularization, of which 2386 met our inclusion criteria (Percutaneous coronary intervention, n=1450; coronary artery bypass grafting, n=936). Propensity score analysis matched 628 patients, of which 468 were treated to the left anterior descending with coronary artery bypass grafting with LIMA (n=314), percutaneous coronary intervention with BMS (n=94), and DES (n=60). Coronary angiograms were analyzed by quantitative coronary angiography ( QCA ; n=433). Cumulative downstream coronary and conduit disease progression were estimated by Kaplan–Meier method and effect of treatment type by Cox proportional hazard models. Patients treated with LIMA had significantly lower risk of downstream coronary disease progression at follow‐up angiogram compared with BMS and DES (hazard ratio [ HR ] [95% CI ], 0.34; [0.20–0.59]; P =0.0002; and HR [95% CI ], 0.39; [0.20–0.79]; P =0.01, respectively). LIMA was associated with a lower risk of conduit disease progression compared to BMS and DES ( HR [95% CI ], 0.18; [0.12–0.28]; P <0.001; and HR [95% CI ], 0.27; [0.16–0.46]; P <0.001, respectively). BMS was associated with higher HR for downstream coronary and conduit disease progression compared with DES , but the difference did not reach statistical significance ( HR [95% CI], 1.13; [0.57–2.36]; P =0.73; and HR [95% CI ], 1.46; [0.88–2.50]; P =0.14, respectively). Conclusions LIMA grafting to left anterior descending is associated with significantly lower risk of downstream coronary and conduit disease progression compared to percutaneous coronary intervention with BMS and DES .