Abstract
Background
Currently, there is no validated multivariate model to predict probability of coronary artery spasm (CAS) in patients with acute chest pain.
Methods
A total of 976 consecutive patients with acute chest pain were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups based on the presence of significant CAS. To adjust potential confounders, a multivariable analysis was performed and a clinical diagnostic score system for CAS was utilized for score derivation.
Results
Multivariable analysis model selected 6 predictors for CAS. The integer score was assigned to each predictors: angina at rest alone (10 points), positive of hyperventilation test (8 points), allergies (3 points), asthma, ST-segment elevation and myocardial bridge (2 points each). We showed that the clinical diagnostic score system had accuracy in predicting CAS, as measured by the area under the curve (AUC), which was 0.952–0.966. The cut-off baseline value for the clinical diagnostic score system was set to 11–12 points with specificity of 91.0–93.3% and sensitivity of 90.7–92.9%, respectively.
Conclusion
A clinical diagnostic score system was derived and validated as an accurate tool for estimating the pretest probability of CAS in patients with acute chest pain.
Keywords: Acute chest pain, Coronary artery spasm, Clinical diagnostic score system
1. Introduction
Coronary artery spasm (CAS) is known to be a risk factor of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) characterized by transient total or subtotal vessel occlusion [[1], [2], [3]]. Smoking, age, physical and/or mental stress, and myocardial bridge are significant risk factors for CAS [[4], [5], [6], [7]]. Previous Asian studies of patients have showed that the prevalence of CAS is around 40–50% in patients with angina and 57% in patients with ACS [[8], [9], [10]]. In non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) patients, the positive of provocative test is about 46% [11]. Transient myocardial ischemia caused by CAS can be complicated by myocardial infarction, unstable angina, heart failure and malignant arrhythmia, which can result in sudden death [12]. Accordingly, a prompt diagnosis of provocative test usually is required to establish a definitive diagnosis of CAS. However, intravenous provocative test is invasive and can lead to severe complications [13,14]. Thus few doctors are willing to do the provocative test, leading to few diagnosis of CAS. Yusuke Takagi and colleagues have developed a novel scoring system, which provide the comprehensive risk assessment and prognostic stratification for CAS patients [15]. However, no clinical diagnostic score for CAS was studied.
In the present study, we thus aimed to develop a comprehensive clinical diagnostic scoring system for CAS patients. The major hypothesis of this trial was that the clinical diagnostic scoring system would help us easily diagnose CAS.
2. Methods
2.1. Patients
The present study was conducted as an investigator initiated observational clinical research. From 2010 to 2016 in Department of Cardiology, a total 1700 patients were consecutively enrolled with acute chest pain. All the patients received coronary angiography. 1123 (60.06%) patients showed no significant coronary stenosis (stenosis <50%) and continuously received ergonovine provocation test. The diagnosis of CAS was made based on the spasm provocation test defined by the Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Vasospastic Angina of the Japanese Circulation Society [16]. The positive diagnosis of the provocation test was defined as a total or subtotal (>90%) coronary artery narrowing induced by ergonovine during coronary angiography, accompanied by chest pain and/or ischemic electrocardiography (ECG) changes.
To systematically test the model and evaluate the accuracy of the model, we randomly divided the data into 80% (781 cases including 335 in CAS group and 446 in non-CAS group) as the multivariate model training dataset and 20% (195 cases including 84 in CAS group and 111 in non-CAS group) as the testing dataset by the envelope of a random process.
2.2. The hyperventilation test
The hyperventilation test was performed in the early morning for provocation of the angina1 attack (6:30 AM to 8:30 AM). After a control 12‑lead ECG and echocardiogram were recorded, the patients hyperventilated vigorously for 3 to 8 min. Nitroglycerin administration was stopped 2 h before the study. The hyperventilation test positive was defined as transient abnormalities of regional wall motion of left ventricle (LV) by echocardiographically monitoring during hyperventilation, or chest pain with ischemic ECG changes, especially transient ST-segment elevation during hyperventilation [17,18].
2.3. Histamine bronchial provocation test
The history of allergies and asthma were collected from a standardized validated questionnaire from each patient. Histamine bronchial provocation test was performed to confirm asthma.
2.4. Exclusive criteria
Patients were excluded if they had coronary stenosis >50%. Other exclusion criteria included pericarditis, pulmonary embolism, aortic dissection or pneumonia.
2.5. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS 22.0 and MedCalc® 15.2.2 statistical software. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Between-group differences with respect to continuous variables were assessed using the Student's test or Kruskal–Wallis test, while those with respect to categorical variables were assessed using Chi-squared test or Fisher Exact test (as appropriate). Univariable and multivariable Analysis model were applied to select the baseline characteristics that correlated with CAS. The variables showing statistical significance (OR > 1 and p < 0.05) in univariable model were subjected to multivariable analysis with a forced-entry method. The significant variables selected from multivariable model were assigned integer score proportional to their adjusted odds ratio (OR) for CAS.
The cut-off points were analyzed by a receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis to determine the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity values for the clinical diagnostic score system in predicting CAS. The same way was performed in testing dataset to conform the accurate of the clinical diagnostic score system. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
3. Results
3.1. Baseline characteristics of patients in the training dataset
The enrollment profiles are summarized in Table 1. 781 patients were screened including 335 (42.89%) in CAS group and 446 (57.11%) in non-CAS group. The mean (±SD) age of the patients in CAS group and non-CAS group was 52.06 ± 10.63 vs 59.84 ± 11.32 years (p < 0.001). There was significant difference between the two groups with respect to allergies (40, 11.93% vs 24, 5.46%; p < 0.001), asthma (30, 9.07% vs 16, 3.58%, p < 0.001), clinical situation of angina attack (rest: 255, 76.13% vs 55, 12.29%, p < 0.001; effort: 65, 19.33% vs 388, 87.03%, p < 0.001), ST-segment elevation during angina attack (172, 51.31% vs 138, 31.05%, p < 0.001), myocardial bridge (43, 12.89% vs 26, 5.97%, p < 0.001) and hyperventilation test (157, 46.78% vs 62, 13.99%, p < 0.001) in CAS group and non-CAS group. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to admission SBP, admission heart rate, life-threatening arrhythmia and LDL-C (Fig. 1).
Table 1.
Characteristics of the patients at baseline.
| Characteristics | The CAS group | The non-CAS group | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | N = 335 | N = 446 | – |
| Age (year) | 52.06 ± 10.63 | 59.84 ± 11.32 | <0.001 |
| Males, n (%) | 177(52.74) | 244(54.60) | 0.234 |
| SBP (mm Hg) | 129.52 ± 14.57 | 128.81 ± 22.14 | 0.608 |
| HR (bpm) | 76.24 ± 12.17 | 76.38 ± 39.29 | 0.950 |
| Allergies, n (%)a | 40(11.93) | 24(5.46) | <0.001 |
| Asthma, n (%)a | 30(9.07) | 16(3.58) | <0.001 |
| Coronary risk factor | |||
| Hypertension, n (%) | 76(23.15) | 119(26.62) | 0.672 |
| Calcium antagonists, n (%) | 74(22.09) | 92(20.63) | 0.720 |
| Diabetes mellitus, n (%) | 34(10.02) | 56(12.63) | 0.632 |
| Smoking, n (%) | 93(27.68) | 103(23.04) | 0.093 |
| Clinical situation of angina attack | |||
| Rest, n (%) | 255(76.13) | 55(12.29) | <0.001 |
| Effort, n (%) | 65(19.33) | 388(87.03) | <0.001 |
| Rest and effort, n (%) | 26(7.64) | 38(8.53) | 0.084 |
| ST-segment change during angina attack | |||
| ST-segment elevation, n (%) | 172(51.31) | 138(31.05) | <0.001 |
| ST-segment depression, n (%) | 106(31.74) | 193(43.34) | 0.053 |
| Life-threatening arrhythmias | |||
| VT/VF, n (%) | 34(10.26) | 51(11.43) | 0.558 |
| AV block, n (%) | 38(11.46) | 50(11.26) | 0.924 |
| OHCA, n (%) | 38(11.22) | 59(13.31) | 0.321 |
| Myocardial bridge, n (%) | 43(12.89) | 26(5.97) | <0.001 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 3.10 ± 0.51 | 3.05 ± 0.48 | 0.431 |
| Hyperventilation test, n (%) | 157(46.78) | 62(13.99) | <0.001 |
SBP: systolic blood pressure, HR: heart rate, VT/VF: ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, AV block: atrioventricular block, OHCA: out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
The history of allergies and asthma.
Fig. 1.
Flowchart of the statistical analysis. *Patients were excluded including APE (n = 34), AoD (n = 8), pericarditis (n = 12), pneumonia (n = 67) and others (n = 27). APE: acute pulmonary embolism, AoD: acute arterial dissection, CAS: coronary artery spasm, OR: odds rate, AUC: area under the curve.
3.2. Correlated factors for CAS and assigned score
From univariable analysis for CAS, there was significant difference between the two groups with respect to age, allergies, asthma, coronary risk factor (hypertension and diabetes mellitus), angina at rest alone, ST-segment elevation during angina attack, myocardial bridge and hyperventilation test (Table 2). The variables showing statistical significance (OR > 1 and p < 0.05) in univariable model were subjected to multivariable analysis and selected 6 predictors for CAS. The integer score was assigned to each predictors: angina at rest alone (10 points), positive of hyperventilation test (8 points), allergies (3 points), asthma, ST-segment elevation and myocardial bridge (2 points each) (p < 0.027–0.001) (Table 3).
Table 2.
Univariable analysis for CAS.
| Univariable Analysis |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | P | |
| Age | 0.937 | 0.926–0.949 | <0.001 |
| Males | 0.462 | 0.357–0.596 | 0.220 |
| Allergiesa | 3.083 | 2.640–5.782 | <0.001 |
| Asthmaa | 2.394 | 2.057–5.375 | <0.001 |
| Coronary risk factor | |||
| Hypertension | 0.547 | 0.412–0.727 | <0.001 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 0.474 | 0.313–0.718 | <0.001 |
| Smoking | 1.279 | 0.959–1.705 | 0.094 |
| Clinical situation of angina attack | |||
| Rest | 12.186 | 10.083–15.757 | <0.001 |
| Effort | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.992 |
| Rest and effort | 0.459 | 0.268–0.785 | 0.064 |
| ST-segment change during angina | |||
| ST-segment elevation | 1.145 | 0.886–1.479 | <0.001 |
| ST-segment depression | 1.01 | 1.000–1.172 | 0.063 |
| Life-threatening arrhythmias | |||
| VT/VF | 0.886 | 0.591–1.329 | 0.558 |
| AV block | 1.019 | 0.687–1.513 | 0.924 |
| OHCA | 0.823 | 0.559–1.210 | 0.332 |
| Myocardial bridge | 1.947 | 1.601–3.990 | <0.001 |
| LDL-C | 1.162 | 0.899–1.503 | 0.252 |
| Hyperventilation test | 7.144 | 6.551–10.979 | <0.001 |
VT/VF: ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, AV block: atrioventricular block, OHCA: out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
The history of allergies and asthma.
Table 3.
Multivariable analysis for CAS and assigned score.
| Multivariable analysis |
Assigned score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | P | ||
| Allergies* | 2.693 | 2.449–5.549 | <0.001 | 3 |
| Asthma* | 2.063 | 2.009–5.500 | <0.001 | 2 |
| Angina attack at rest | 10.12 | 10.352–15.179 | <0.001 | 10 |
| ST-segment elevation | 1.843 | 1.073–3.165 | 0.027 | 2 |
| Myocardial bridge | 2.142 | 1.122–4.890 | <0.001 | 2 |
| Hyperventilation test | 8.038 | 6.208–10.086 | <0.001 | 8 |
Allergies* and Asthma*: the history of allergies and asthma.
3.3. The AUC of the Diagnostic Score System for CAS in the training dataset
From Fig. 2-A, we showed that the clinical diagnostic score system had accuracy in predicting CAS, as measured by the AUC, which was 0.966 (95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.923 to 0.977). The cut-off baseline value was set to 11 points with specificity of 93.3% and sensitivity of 90.7%, respective.
Fig. 2.
The AUC of the Diagnostic Score System for CAS in the training dataset. The AUC was 0.966 (95% CI, 0.923 to 0.977). The cut-off baseline value was set to 11 points with specificity of 93.3% and sensitivity of 90.7%, respectively (Fig. 2-A). The AUC of the Diagnostic Score System for CAS in the testing dataset. The AUC was 0.952 (95% CI, 0.912 to 0.977). The cut-off baseline value was set to 11 points with specificity of 91.0% and sensitivity of 92.9%, respectively (Fig. 2-B).
3.4. Validate the scoring system in the testing dataset
195 patients were screened including 84 in CAS group and 111 in non-CAS group in the testing dataset. We showed that the clinical diagnostic score system also had accuracy in predicting CAS, as measured by AUC, which was 0.952 (95% CI, 0.912 to 0.977). The cut-off baseline value was set to 12 points with specificity of 91.0% and sensitivity of 92.9%, respectively (Fig. 2-B).
4. Discussion
We performed an observational clinical research to develop a comprehensive clinical diagnostic score system for angina patients with CAS. The major finding of the present study was that the clinical diagnostic score system, in which 6 predictive factors derived from the multivariable analysis were integrated, showed a significant correlation with the diagnosis of CAS patients and an acceptable predictive capacity in the internal validation.
In our study, the clinical diagnostic score system demonstrated the AUC of 0.966 with specificity of 93.3% and sensitivity of 90.7% for CAS in the training dataset when the cut-off baseline value was set to 11 points. These values needed to be further tested and confirmed in real life practice. We validated the scoring system in the independent external dataset (testing dataset) and still represented an accurate tool with AUC of 0.952 for estimating the pretest probability of CAS in patients with acute chest pain. The important and unique characteristics of this study represents and suits in a real world practice or emergency room scenario that after the CAS patients are identified, they will be advised to seek specific treatment of calcium channel blockers that may improve symptoms and clinical outcomes in CAS patients without further delay. Montone and colleagues have found that CAS had significantly worse clinical outcomes—including all-cause mortality, cardiac death, readmission with acute myocardiac infarction (AMI), and frequency of angina episodes—compared with patients with non-CAS patients during a follow-up ranging from 12 to 60 months in MINOCA patients [11]. Because of being totally noninvasive and safe, the diagnostic score system may represent a useful tool to raise awareness as to the possible diagnosis of CAS in a given angina patient and improve prognosis of patient with CAS in routine daily practice.
A diagnosis of CAS cannot be directly established based on symptoms, standard 12‑lead ECG results, Holter monitoring, or treadmill testing [19,20]. There was no significant difference regarding clinical characteristics when MINOCA patients with or without CAS were compared [11]. Coronary angiography with provocative test is the only certain method of diagnosing CAS [10]. Pharmacological provocation, with intracoronary acetylcholine or with intravenous or intracoronary ergonovine has been used to diagnose CAS for a long time. In 1986, Okumura and Yasue et al., have reported that the sensitivity and specificity of spasm provocation test in active variant angina were 90–99% [21,22]. However, in the Younger Patients (mostly age < 40 years), the sensitivity of the provocation test was only 40–75% [23]. Besides, false negative results may be obtained when the disease activity is low, or nitroglycerin administration is not stopped immediately, a negative test cannot always exclude CAS [24].
Ascribing to pharmacological spasm provocation test is invasive method, we always have the potential to encounter complications when performing the test. The overall serious major complications were 0.62% of patients including death (0.001%), coronary aorta bypass graft surgery and acute myocardial infarction (0.004%), ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation (0.53%), cardioversion (0.035%), Brady (0.11%), cardiogenic shock (0.035% and so on [25]. Furthermore, there are contraindications including pregnancy, severe hypertension, severe left ventricular dysfunction, moderate to severe aortic stenosis or outflow obstruction and high-grade left main coronary artery disease [10]. Finally, coronary spasm provocation test, undertaken either in the digital subtraction angiography (DSA) room or at bedside, is a potentially risky and challenging procedure, requiring a high degree of skill on the part of the operator.
In this study, we also found that the history of allergies and asthma was new predictive factory for CAS. Cardiovascular allergic and anaphylactic reactions to various allergens have been well established for many years. Kounis and Zavras described the “allergic angina syndrome” as coronary spasm progressed to allergic acute MI [26]. The main pathophysiological mechanism is vasospasm of coronary arteries due to increased inflammatory mediators that are released during a hypersensitivity reaction or asthmatic attack. Mast cell degranulation and anaphylaxis or anaphylactoid reactions can occur after drug exposure or asthmatic attack [27]. Coronary involvement in hypersensivity reactions is probably secondary to increased circulatory inflammatory mediators mainly histamine, interleukins (IL), endothelins (ET), proteases such as tryptase and chymase or products of arachidonic acid metabolism [28].
Additionally, we found that the hyperventilation test was preferable to diagnose CAS. In our study, the positive of hyperventilation test was 13.99% vs 46.78% (P < 0.001) in non-CAS group and CAS group, which was agreed with Hiromi Fuji's study [29]. DeGregorio reported a case of a comatose patient with tracheostomy in whom hyperventilation, caused by excessive bronchial secretion resulting in partial obstruction of the tracheal cannula, was followed by ST segment elevation mimicking acute myocardial infarction [30]. The attack of coronary spasm is induced by hyperventilation causing respiratory alkalosis, which enhances Na—H and Na—Ca exchanger, resulting in an increased intracellular Ca concentration [31].
We would like to acknowledge that our study does have several limitations. First, as a single centre study, the scoring system consisted of only clinical variables that we have searched from previous studies, some important predictors may possibly be missed. Second, 65% of the hypertensive patients were treated with calcium antagonists, which might suppress the spasm in the coronary arteries and mask the diagnosis of spasm. Third, ascribing to an investigator initiated observational clinical research, larger scale of clinical data is needed to examine its predictive accuracy and specificity. However, despite these limitations, the present clinical diagnostic score system should merit emphasis for better understanding and diagnosis of CAS.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, we show that the clinical diagnostic score system is an accurate tool for estimating the pretest probability of CAS in patients with acute chest pain who have no organic stenosis angiographically. Further studies including the diagnostic score system and convolutional neural networks (CNNs)or machine learning algorithms are required to improve the diagnosis of CAS.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgement
Yaowang Lin collected, analyzed and wrote this manuscript. Haiyan Qin collected and analyzed the data. Ruimian Chen, Qiyun liu, Huadong Liu assisted in this study conduction. Shaohong Dong was the principal investigator.
Statement of ethics
All the included patients were informed and consented with regard to their participation in this study. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board at Shenzhen People's Hospital.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- 1.Hung M.J., Hu P., Hung M.Y. Coronary artery spasm: review and update. Int. J. Med. Sci. 2014;11(11):1161–1171. doi: 10.7150/ijms.9623. Journal Article; Review. 2014-01-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Sechtem U., Ong P., Athanasiadis A., Vohringer M., Merher R., Yilmaz A. Coronary vasospasm: is it a myth? Am. J. Cardiovasc. Drugs. 2010;10(Suppl. 1):19–26. doi: 10.2165/1153642-S0-000000000-00000. Case Reports; Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review. 2010-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lanza G.A., Careri G., Crea F. Mechanisms of coronary artery spasm. Circulation. 2011;124(16):1774–1782. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.037283. Journal Article; Review. 2011-10-18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Takaoka K., Yoshimura M., Ogawa H., Kugiyama K., Nakayama M., Shimasaki Y. Comparison of the risk factors for coronary artery spasm with those for organic stenosis in a Japanese population: role of cigarette smoking. Int. J. Cardiol. 2000;72(2):121–126. doi: 10.1016/s0167-5273(99)00172-2. Comparative Study; Journal Article;. 2000-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hung M.Y., Hsu K.H., Hung M.J., Cheng C.W., Kuo L.T., Cherng W.J. Interaction between cigarette smoking and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in the development of c oronary vasospasm in patients without hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease. Am J Med Sci. 2009;338(6):440–446. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3181b9147f. Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't;. 2009-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Nam P., Choi B.G., Choi S.Y., Byun J.K., Mashaly A., Park Y. The impact of myocardial bridge on coronary artery spasm and long-term clinical outcomes in patients without significant atherosclerotic stenosis. Atherosclerosis. 2018;270:8–12. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2018.01.026. Journal Article;. 2018-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Saito Y., Kitahara H., Shoji T., Tokimasa S., Nakayama T., Sugimoto K. Relation between severity of myocardial bridge and vasospasm. Int. J. Cardiol. 2017;248:34–38. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.07.002. Journal Article;. 2017-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hung M.J., Cherng W.J., Cheng C.W., Li L.F. Comparison of serum levels of inflammatory markers in patients with coronary vasospasm without significant fixed coronary artery disease versus patients with stable angina pectoris and acute coronary syndromes with significant fixed coronary artery disease. Am. J. Cardiol. 2006;97(10):1429–1434. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.12.035. Comparative Study; Journal Article;. 2006-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hung M.J., Cheng C.W., Yang N.I., Hung M.Y., Cherng W.J. Coronary vasospasm-induced acute coronary syndrome complicated by life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias in patients without hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease. Int. J. Cardiol. 2007;117(1):37–44. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.03.055. Journal Article;. 2007-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.JCS J.W.G. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of patients with vasospastic angina (Coronary Spastic Angina) (JCS 2013) Circ. J. 2014;78(11):2779–2801. doi: 10.1253/circj.cj-66-0098. Journal Article; Practice Guideline;. 2014-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Montone R.A., Niccoli G., Fracassi F., Russo M., Gurgoglione F., Camma G. Patients with acute myocardial infarction and non-obstructive coronary arteries: safety and prognostic relevance of invasive coronary provocative tests. Eur. Heart J. 2018;39(2):91–98. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx667. Journal Article. 2018-01-07. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Myerburg R.J., Kessler K.M., Mallon S.M., Cox M.M., DeMarchena E., Interian A. Life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias in patients with silent myocardial ischemia due to coronary-artery spasm. N. Engl. J. Med. 1992;326(22):1451–1455. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199205283262202. Case Reports; Journal Article; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.;. 1992-01-19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Buxton A., Goldberg S., Hirshfeld J.W., Wilson J., Mann T., Williams D.O. Refractory ergonovine-induced coronary vasospasm: importance of intracoronary nitroglycerin. Am. J. Cardiol. 1980;46(2):329–334. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(80)90080-6. Case Reports; Journal Article;. 1980-01-19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hamilton K.K., Pepine C.J. A renaissance of provocative testing for coronary spasm? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2000;35(7):1857–1859. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(00)00653-7. Comment;Editorial;. 2000-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Takagi Y., Takahashi J., Yasuda S., Miyata S., Tsunoda R., Ogata Y. Prognostic stratification of patients with vasospastic angina: a comprehensive clinical risk score developed by the Japanese Coronary Spasm Association. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013;62(13):1144–1153. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.07.018. Journal Article; Multicenter Study; Validation Studies;. 2013-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.JCS J.W.G. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of patients with vasospastic angina (Coronary Spastic Angina) (JCS 2013) Circ. J. 2014;78(11):2779–2801. doi: 10.1253/circj.cj-66-0098. Journal Article; Practice Guideline;. 2014-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Salomon P., Spring A. Echocardiographic monitoring of left ventricular regional motion during hyperventilation and intravenous infusion of trometamol (tris) for detection of variant angina. Kardiol. Pol. 2003;59(10):302–311. Journal Article. 2003-10-01. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.de Gregorio C., Saporito F., Andò G., Morabito G., Cerrito M., Oreto G. Hyperventilation-induced ST segment elevation mimicking acute myocardial infarction in a comatose patient with tracheostomy. Int. J. Cardiol. 2011;149(2):e47–e49. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2009.03.095. Case Reports; Journal Article;. 2011-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Yasue H., Nakagawa H., Itoh T., Harada E., Mizuno Y. Coronary artery spasm—clinical features, diagnosis, pathogenesis, and treatment. J. Cardiol. 2008;51(1):2–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2008.01.001. Journal Article; Review;. 2008-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Onaka H., Hirota Y., Shimada S., Kita Y., Sakai Y., Kawakami Y. Clinical observation of spontaneous anginal attacks and multivessel spasm in variant angina pectoris with normal coronary arteries: evaluation by 24-hour 12-lead electrocardiography with computer analysis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1996;27(1):38–44. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(95)00423-8. Clinical Trial; Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't;. 1996-01-19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Zaya M., Mehta P.K., Merz C.N. Provocative testing for coronary reactivity and spasm. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2014;63(2):103–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.10.038. Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't;Review;. 2014-01-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Yasue H., Horio Y., Nakamura N., Fujii H., Imoto N., Sonoda R. Induction of coronary artery spasm by acetylcholine in patients with variant angina: possible role of the parasympathetic nervous system in the pathogenesis of coronary artery spasm. Circulation. 1986;74(5):955–963. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.74.5.955. Journal Article;. 1986-01-19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Sueda S., Kohno H., Ochi T., Uraoka T. Overview of the acetylcholine spasm provocation test. Clin. Cardiol. 2015;38(7):430–438. doi: 10.1002/clc.22403. Journal Article; Review;. 2015-01-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Zaya M., Mehta P.K., Merz C.N. Provocative testing for coronary reactivity and spasm. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2014;63(2):103–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.10.038. Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't;Review;. 2014-01-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Sueda S., Kohno H. Overview of complications during pharmacological spasm provocation tests. J. Cardiol. 2016;68(1):1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2016.03.005. Journal Article; Review;. 2016-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Kounis N.G., Zavras G.M. Histamine-induced coronary artery spasm: the concept of allergic angina. Br J Clin Pract. 1991;45(2):121–128. Journal Article; Review;. 1991-01-19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Abdelghany M., Subedi R., Shah S., Kozman H. Kounis syndrome: a review article on epidemiology, diagnostic findings, management and complications of allergic acute coronary syndrome. Int. J. Cardiol. 2017;232:1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.01.124. Journal Article; Review;. 2017-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Nikolaidis L.A., Kounis N.G., Gradman A.H. Allergic angina and allergic myocardial infarction: a new twist on an old syndrome. Can J Cardiol. 2002;18(5):508–511. Case Reports; Journal Article;. 2002-01-20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Fujii H., Yasue H., Okumura K., Matsuyama K., Morikami Y., Miyagi H. Hyperventilation-induced simultaneous multivessel coronary spasm in patients with variant angina: an echocardiographic and arteriographic study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1988;12(5):1184–1192. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(88)92598-3. Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't;. 1988-01-19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.de Gregorio C., Saporito F., Andò G., Morabito G., Cerrito M., Oreto G. Hyperventilation-induced ST segment elevation mimicking acute myocardial infarction in a comatose pat ient with tracheostomy. Int. J. Cardiol. 2011;149(2):e47–e49. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2009.03.095. Case Reports; Journal Article;. 2011-01-20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Yasue H., Nagao M., Omote S., Takizawa A., Miwa K., Tanaka S. Coronary arterial spasm and Prinzmetal's variant form of angina induced by hyperventilation and Tris- buffer infusion. Circulation. 1978;58(1):56–62. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.58.1.56. Journal Article;. 1978-01-19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]