Coronary artery spasm (CAS) can be diagnosed in a large proportion of patients with recurrent angina and non-obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA) by means of spasm provocation testing with acetylcholine(ACh)1,2,3,4.The recent CorMicA trial demonstrated that identification and concurrent tailored treatment of CAS persistently improve the patient's quality of life and reduce the burden of angina5. Usually, once CAS is diagnosed, it is regarded as one distinct disease and treated with anti-vasospastic medication, such as calcium antagonists and nitrates1. Although, CAS can be divided into different subtypes with different pathophysiological mechanisms that may require tailored drug treatment6. CAS can occur on an epicardial level, either focally or diffusely, throughout the epicardial coronary arteries or on a microvascular level. The former is defined as vasospastic angina (VSA) and the latter as microvascular angina (MVA) due to microvascular spasm according to the COronary VAsomotor DISorders study group (COVADIS)3,4. Moreover, combinations of endotypes of CAS may co-exist that can further complicate tailored treatment. This is especially important as the occurrence of microvascular spasm may be masked during spasm provocation when a simultaneous epicardial spasm occurs.
As a consequence, treatment of these patients in clinical practice can be cumbersome and initiates a period of trial and error based treatment with various anti-vasospastic or anti-anginal medications. Nitrates, in particular, are often initiated as first-line treatment in short-acting form as rescue medication for acute anginal attacks or in the long-acting form as maintenance therapy. The evidence behind the role of nitrates in the setting of each CAS subtype is lacking, and the effectivity can vary on a per-patient basis. Especially in the case of microvascular or diffuse distal epicardial spasm, the effect of NTG is controversial7,8. Furthermore, the therapeutic efficacy of chronic NTG treatment has to be weighed against potential side effects, such as severe headaches and a worsened exercise capacity9,10,11.
Recently Seitz et al. demonstrated the clinical usefulness of the ACh rechallenge technique after NTG administration as an add-on procedure to the spasm provocation test12. This is performed after a positive spasm provocation test by readministering the vasospastic dose of ACh in a similar fashion as the vasospastic dose itself 3 min after NTG administration. To this end, the COVADIS criteria are revisited in order to evaluate the preventive effect of NTG, e.g., improvement in symptoms, ischemic ECG changes, and reassessment of the site and mode of spasm by angiography3,4. Moreover, prevention of epicardial spasm during rechallenge can unmask the co-existence of microvascular spasm.
The purpose of the rechallenge after NTG, therefore, is two-fold: (1) to assess the preventive effect of NTG on the re-occurrence of spasm on a per patients level in order to improve clinical outcomes and tailor treatment immediately after diagnosis that is made during spasm provocation and (2) to assess the co-existence of microvascular spasm in patients with epicardial coronary artery spasm10,13.
A previous publication by Ong et al. extensively covered the spasm provocation test14. In our institute, we use a variation of this protocol where the ACh dosages are administered in 60 s instead of 20 s. The purpose of this paper is to describe the NTG rechallenge as an add-on procedure to the ACh spasm provocation test. This technique can be performed with each type of protocol, as demonstrated by Seitz et al. since the results of the NTG rechallenge did not differ among the participating centers that used different protocols.