A systematic review of enrolment criteria and treatment efficacy for microvascular angina
Authors' conclusion
Treatment studies of MVA enrolled a heterogeneous population, with only a quarter meeting contemporary diagnostic criteria for definitive MVA. There is a paucity of high quality, randomised data to support any specific treatment intervention. Larger studies with robust selection criteria, blinded patient-reported outcomes, and long-term follow-up are needed.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with angina and non-obstructive coronary artery disease or coronary microvascular dysfunction; populations with acute coronary syndrome excludedstudies included
- Participants
- 43 patients
- Outcome
- Enrolment by Coronary Vasomotor Disorders International Study Group criteria
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Studies enrolling patients with "definitive" microvascular angina (MVA)
11
26%
Studies enrolling patients with "suspected" MVA
24
56%
Studies not enrolling patients who met the diagnostic criteria
8
19%
Further pooled results
Treatment interventions investigated
- Unique treatment interventions
- 24
- Observational and single armed
- 12/24, 50%
- Single randomised study
- 9/24, 38%
- Ranolazine is the most well-studied intervention drug
Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores and coronary flow reserve with ranolazine · short-term follow-up
- Double-blind randomised controlled trials of ranolazine
- n=6
- Inconsistent improvements in Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores and coronary flow reserve
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →