Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
    • CHEST 2021
    • IDWeek 2021
    • IAS 2021
    • ADA 2021
    • ATS 2021
    • ACC 2021
    • ACP 2021
    • AAN 2021
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org
  • Register
  • Log in
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
    • CHEST 2021
    • IDWeek 2021
    • IAS 2021
    • ADA 2021
    • ATS 2021
    • ACC 2021
    • ACP 2021
    • AAN 2021
From the Editor

We have a greater understanding of ‘cardiac syndrome X,’ but questions remain

Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine October 2021, 88 (10) 532-533; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.88b.10021
Brian F. Mandell
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Find this author on Cleveland Clinic
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Embedded Image

There was a time when diagnosing coronary artery disease and managing its clinical expression of angina and myocardial infarction focused almost entirely on the lumens of the major coronary vessels. Culprit stenoses needed to be recognized and rectified, mainly via bypass or an endovascular procedure. Medical therapy was adjunctive or preventative. Improved understanding of the biologic nature of the stenosing plaque and proliferating and remodeling vascular tissue led to the implementation of still-evolving approaches directed at plaque stabilization and shrinkage, as well as antithrombotic and antiproliferative therapies. We also saw that some patients experienced classic angina with imaging or electrocardiographic evidence of myocardial ischemia and sometimes infarction in the absence of significant epicardial coronary artery obstructive lesions. The pathogenesis was unclear, and these patients were thus diagnosed as having “cardiac syndrome X.” In current parlance, they have ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA). Greater understanding of this condition, which can clinically mirror obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) until coronary angiography is performed, has led to the recognition that many of these patients have coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD).1

As discussed by Tjoe et al2 in this issue of the Journal, INOCA-related syndromes are most commonly precipitated by coronary spasm or by CMD. Definitive diagnosis requires accurate epicardial coronary imaging to exclude significant obstruction and epicardial coronary spasm, and then physiologic assessment of the coronary microvasculature. Physiologic assessment, as Tjoe et al describe in detail, includes measurement of coronary flow reserve and interventional evaluation of endothelial function. These procedures may not be available in all catheterization laboratories.

CMD seems to be more common in women than men and is not benign, as it is associated with the presence or future development of atherosclerotic obstructive CAD. But even in the absence of coexistent obstructive CAD, there is an association with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, with acute coronary syndromes, and with several comorbidities including diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension, and perhaps with some systemic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases.

As I was thinking through these associations and the independent role that CMD might play in clinical outcomes, I wondered if its more common presence in women (for reasons I do not fully understand) might contribute to the variably described protective effects of aspirin in women vs men, assuming a nonthrombotic pathophysiology for CMD. Perhaps CMD could also explain some of the increased cardiovascular risk, incompletely accounted for by traditional cardiac risk factors, attributed to autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus—perhaps as a result of the effect of inflammatory cytokines or activated cells on regulatory control of the coronary microvasculature, in addition to the underlying biologic effects attributable to the female host. (Recall that these 2 conditions occur more commonly in women.)

Another interesting observation regarding patients with CMD is that patients (66% female) initially screened for participation in the CIAO-ISCHEMIA trial3 who had angina with ischemia but no coronary obstruction on angiography were followed over a year’s time and underwent repeat stress echocardiographic testing along with angina questionnaires. The patients received medical treatment at the discretion of their physicians. After 1 year, the stress echo was normal in approximately half of the patients, and angina had improved in 43% and worsened in 14%, but the changes in imaging did not correlate with the changes in angina.4 Apparently, we still have a lot to learn about the nature and expression of pain, even in a pain syndrome like angina, which we think we understand.

  • Copyright © 2021 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Vancheri F,
    2. Longo G,
    3. Vancheri S,
    4. Henein M
    . Coronary microvascular dysfunction. J Clin Med 2020; 9(9):2880. doi:10.3390/jcm9092880
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Tjoe B,
    2. Barsky L,
    3. Wei CJ, et al
    . Coronary microvascular dysfunction: Considerations for diagnosis and management. Cleve Clin J Med 2021; 88(10):561–571. doi:10.3949/ccjm.88a.20140
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Maron DJ,
    2. Hochman JS,
    3. Reynolds HR, et al
    . Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2020; 382(15):1395–1407. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1915922
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Reynolds HR,
    2. Picard MH,
    3. Spertus JA, et al
    . Natural history of patients with ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease: The CIAO-ISCHEMIA study. Circulation 2021. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046791
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine: 88 (10)
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
Vol. 88, Issue 10
1 Oct 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
We have a greater understanding of ‘cardiac syndrome X,’ but questions remain
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
We have a greater understanding of ‘cardiac syndrome X,’ but questions remain
Brian F. Mandell
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Oct 2021, 88 (10) 532-533; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.88b.10021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
We have a greater understanding of ‘cardiac syndrome X,’ but questions remain
Brian F. Mandell
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Oct 2021, 88 (10) 532-533; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.88b.10021
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Linkedin Share Button

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Viruses change; we can, too
  • Myasthenia gravis: An update for internists
  • Some complexities of diabetes and the heart
Show more From the Editor

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Pain
  • Preventive Care
  • Vascular Medicine
  • Imaging
  • Emergency Medicine
  • Drug Therapy
  • Cardiology

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Supplements
  • Article Type
  • Specialty
  • CME/MOC Articles
  • CME/MOC Calendar
  • Media Kit

Authors & Reviewers

  • Manuscript Submission
  • Authors & Reviewers
  • Subscriptions
  • About CCJM
  • Contact Us
  • Cleveland Clinic Center for Continuing Education
  • Consult QD

Share your suggestions!

Copyright © 2023 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All rights reserved. The information provided is for educational purposes only. Use of this website is subject to the website terms of use and privacy policy. 

Powered by HighWire