No abstract

Background The prospective, multicentre EURECA registry assessed the use of imaging and adoption of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines (GL) in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). Methods Between May 2019 and March 2020, 5156 patients were recruited in 73 centres from 24 ESC member countries. The adoption of GL recommendations was evaluated according to clinical presentation and pre-test probability (PTP) of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Results The mean age of the population was 64 ± 11 years, 60% of patients were males, 42% had PTP >15%, 27% had previous CAD, and ejection fraction was <50% in 5%. Exercise ECG was performed in 32% of patients, stress imaging as the first choice in 40%, and computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in 22%. Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) was the first or downstream test in 17% and 11%, respectively. Obstructive CAD was documented in 24% of patients, inducible ischaemia in 19%, and 13% of patients underwent revascularization. In 44% of patients, the overall diagnostic process did not adopt the GL. In these patients, referral to stress imaging (21% vs. 58%; P < 0.001) or CTCA (17% vs. 30%; P < 0.001) was less frequent, while exercise ECG (43% vs. 22%; P < 0.001) and ICA (48% vs. 15%; P < 0.001) were more frequently performed. The adoption of GL was associated with fewer ICA, higher proportion of diagnosis of obstructive CAD (60% vs. 39%, P < 0.001) and revascularization (54% vs. 37%, P < 0.001), higher quality of life, fewer additional testing, and longer times to late revascularization. Conclusions In patients with CCS, current clinical practice does not adopt GL recommendations on the use of diagnostic tests in a significant proportion of patients. When the diagnostic approach adopts GL recommendations, invasive procedures are less frequently used and the diagnostic yield and therapeutic utility are superior.

No abstract

In the last decades, the effective management of some cardiovascular risk factors in the general population has led to a progressive decrease in the prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD). Nevertheless, coronary heart disease remains the major cause of death in developed and developing countries and chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) are still a major target of utilization of non-invasive cardiac imaging and invasive procedures. Current guidelines recommend the use of non-invasive imaging in patients with CCS to identify subjects at higher risk to be referred for invasive coronary angiography and possible revascularization. These recommendations are challenged by two opposite lines of evidence. Recent trials have somewhat questioned the efficacy of coronary revascularization as compared with optimal medical therapy in CCS. As a consequence the role of imaging in these patients and in in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy is under debate. On the other hand, real-life data indicate that a consistent proportion of patients undergo invasive procedure and are revascularized without any previous non-invasive imaging characterization. On top of this, the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the sanitary systems caused a change in the current management of patients with CAD. In the present review we will discuss these conflicting data analyzing the evidence which has been recently accumulated as well as the gaps of knowledge which should still be filled.

No abstract