Comparative performance of intravenous and intracoronary ergonovine provocation in vasospastic angina

Abstract

BackgroundVasospastic angina is an infrequent underlying cause of angina and is under-diagnosed. Ergonovine provocation tests can be performed via intravenous or intracoronary injections. Although the safety profile of intracoronary injection has been well documented, no study has yet compared the intracoronary and intravenous injections regarding the positivity rate of the test. AimsThis study sought to compare the positivity rate of intravenous versus intracoronary injection of ergonovine in the diagnosis of vasospastic angina. MethodsBetween January 2010 and February 2018, 427 patients with suspected vasospastic angina underwent an ergonovine provocation test in 2 tertiary hospitals in France and were retrospectively included in this study. Injection was performed via the intravenous or the intracoronary route. The primary endpoint was the positivity rate of the test. Propensity score matching was used to account for confounding factors. Results427 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 60.3 (+/- 12.4) years. There were 247 (58%) females and 97 (23%) smokers. The intracoronary route was used in 199 (47%) patients. The indication for the test was acute coronary syndrome for 121 (28%). No rhythmic complications or deaths were reported. After propensity-matching, the baseline characteristics of the 2 groups (148 patients in each) were comparable. The positivity rate was 24% in the intracoronary group and 9% in the intravenous group (OR [95%CI]: 3.2 [1.6, 6.4]). ConclusionsIntracoronary injection of ergonovine is safe and associated with a positivity rate of the test three times higher compared to intravenous injection.