Coronary microvascular disease (CMD) comprises a spectrum of conditions characterized by the functional and structural abnormalities of coronary microcirculation, affecting vessels typically smaller than 500 μm. Despite its clinical significance as a contributor to myocardial ischemia, CMD frequently remains underdiagnosed due to the limitations of current diagnostic approaches. Invasive testing, including coronary reactivity assessment, is considered the gold standard, but it is resource-intensive and not always accessible. Non-invasive methods, such as positron emission tomography (PET) and transthoracic Doppler echocardiography (TTDE), offer alternatives but are limited by varying accuracy and accessibility. Amid these diagnostic challenges, there is increasing interest in circulating biomarkers as adjuncts in CMD evaluation. Biomarkers associated with endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, and oxidative stress, detectable through routine blood tests, may assist in CMD diagnosis, risk stratification, and therapeutic monitoring. These biomarkers can offer insights into CMD pathogenesis and enable early, non-invasive screening to identify patients who may benefit from more invasive investigations. This narrative review examines studies assessing biomarkers in CMD patients with diagnoses confirmed through invasive techniques. Our objective is to focus on circulating biomarkers linked to the invasive evaluation of coronary microcirculation, aiming to advance the understanding of the underlying mechanisms of this prevalent condition and enhance diagnostic accuracy and the clinical management of affected patients.

Background: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD), complete revascularization (CR) is recommended over culprit-only PCI to reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes. However, the optimal strategy for CR, whether angiography (Angio)-guided or physiology-guided, remains uncertain. Methods: This network meta-analysis included 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 11,568 patients to compare the efficacy of angio-guided CR, physiology-guided CR, and culprit-only PCI in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular (CV) death, and unplanned revascularization. The frequentist and Bayesian approaches were applied to assess the effectiveness of each strategy. Results: The pairwise meta-analysis showed that angio-guided CR showed superior efficacy, significantly reducing MACE (OR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.37–0.52), recurrent myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization compared to culprit-only PCI. Physiology-guided CR also reduced MACE (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.45–0.91) and unplanned revascularization. The network metanalysis showed that CV death was lower in the physiology-guided CR group (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.25–1.05), suggesting a protective effect, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. Furthermore, physiology-guided CR was not significantly better than angio-guided CR in most outcomes. Conclusions: Angio-guided CR appears to provide the best overall outcomes for patients with STEMI and MVD, outperforming physiology-guided CR in most endpoints. Further large-scale trials are needed to clarify the relative efficacy of angio-guided CR and physiology-guided CR in this patient population.

Background: The inhibition of PCSK9 lowered LDL cholesterol levels, reducing the risk of cardiovascular events. However, the effect on patients who have undergone surgical myocardial revascularization has not yet been evaluated. Methods: From January 2017 to December 2022, 180 dyslipidemic patients who underwent coronary artery bypass were included in the study. Until December 2019, 100 patients optimized therapy with statin ± ezetimibe (SG). Since January 2020, 80 matched patients added treatment with Evolocumab every 2 weeks (EG). All 180 patients were followed-up at 3 and 12 months, comparing outcomes. Results: The two groups are homogenous. At 3 months and 1 year, a significant decrease in the parameter mean levels of LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol is detected in the Evolocumab group compared to the standard group. No mortality was detected in either group. No complications or drug discontinuation were recorded. In the SG group, five patients (5%) suffered a myocardial infarction during the 1-year follow-up. In the EG group, two patients (2.5%) underwent PTCA due to myocardial infarction. There is no significant difference in overall survival according to the new treatment (p-value = 0.9), and the hazard ratio is equal to 0.94 (95% C.I.: [0.16–5.43]; p-value = 0.9397). Conclusions: The use of Evolocumab, which was started immediately after coronary artery bypass graft surgery, significantly reduced LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol levels compared to statin treatment alone and is completely safe. However, at one year of follow-up, this result did not have impact on the reduction in major clinical events.