A prospective, multicenter, observational, single-arm trial to validate CardioFlux MCG's ability to diagnose myocardial ischemia caused by coronary microvascular dysfunction in patients with suspected ischemia and confirmed no obstructive coronary artery disease (suspected INOCA) by using diagnostic measures of coronary flow reserve (CFR) via invasive angiography as a reference standard for diagnosis.
Magnetocardiography (MCG) is a noninvasive imaging modality that has been extensively studied over the past several decades as a diagnostic imaging solution for various forms of cardiovascular disease. MCG measures the magnetic field that arises from the electrical activity of the heart's pacemaker activity, the very same activity which yields surface electric field potentials as measured by the electrocardiogram. Unlike electrocardiographic signals, however, MCG signals are undistorted by conductive tissue noise, and are highly sensitive to ischemic injury and vortex currents missed by the same electrocardiographic measurements. Accordingly, numerous clinical trials suggest the usefulness of MCG for the evaluation of ischemia in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating the usefulness of MCG in the detection of myocardial ischemia, both in patients with symptoms of ACS, and in patients with stable angina. Since MCG is a functional assessor of depolarization and repolarization heterogeneity, it is hypothesized that MCG may be a useful frontline diagnostic modality to identify CMD in patients who would otherwise have normal coronary CT angiograms and/or stress tests. The proposed study intends to study the diagnostic accuracy of MCG in patients with suspected INOCA. This demonstrates a significant unmet clinical need in the assessment of patients, and especially women, with INOCA. The current standard of care for these patients is resource/time intensive and associated with a significant rate of non-diagnostic clinical data requiring expensive and invasive evaluation for safe patient management. Magnetocardiography offers the potential for rapid, safe, noninvasive, non-radiologic assessment of the INOCA population, and may lead to earlier treatment strategies for CMD patients. From the participating clinical sites, patients age ≥18 years who presented with chest pain or exertional dyspnea concerning for myocardial ischemia with no obstructive epicardial CAD on invasive or computed tomographic coronary angiography will be screened and subsequently enrolled when meeting criteria. This is a prospective observational study used for clinical data collection for the clinical validation testing of the CardioFlux MCG system. There will be no intervention introduced by the study device. The interpretation of the CardioFlux MCG data made by the study reader(s) will not be known to the patient's treating physician. Similarly, the patient's coronary physiology data, diagnosis, or interventions made by the patient's treating physician in following the standard of care will not be known to any of the scan readers. Except for the introduction of the MCG scan, there will be no other alteration to the patient standard of care.
The device is a magnetocardiography (MCG) scanner named CardioFlux, which is paired with a cloud processing software for the acquisition, display, and analysis of magnetic fields generated by cardiac electrical activity.
University of Florida, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine
Gainesville, Florida, United States
Saint Elizabeth Medical Center
Edgewood, Kentucky, United States
Ascension St. John Hospital
Detroit, Michigan, United States
Mayo Clinic, Cardiovascular Research
Diagnostic accuracy of CardioFlux MCG in determining the presence of CMD
Diagnostic accuracy of CardioFlux MCG in determining the presence of coronary microvascular dysfunction, as measured by AUC with ground truth defined as an invasive CFR \<2.5 for bolus thermodilution method. H0: AUC\<0.55 Ha: AUC≥0.55
Time frame: 6 months
Sensitivity and specificity in determining presence of CMD (Rule In)
Patients who have confirmed presence of CMD via invasive CFR: Sensitivity and specificity of CardioFlux MCG in determining the presence of CMD with the gold standard defined as an invasive CFR \<2.5 for thermodilution method as determined by a positive MCG scan output as defined by a Magnetic Dispersion Dynamics (MDD) score less than 41 fT/ms. Sensitivity * H0\<0.30 * Ha≥0.30 Specificity * H0\<0.70 * Ha ≥0.70
Time frame: 6 months
Sensitivity and specificity in determining presence of CMD (Rule Out)
Patients who have confirmed absence of CMD via invasive CFR: Sensitivity * H0\<0.70 * Ha≥0.70 Specificity * H0\<0.30 * Ha ≥0.30
Time frame: 6 months
ROC/AUC, sensitivity and specificity at CFR cut-offs of <2.0 and 3.0.
ROC/AUC, sensitivity and specificity for invasive CFR by thermodilution methods at CFR cut-offs of \<2.0 and 3.0.
Time frame: 6 months
Patient-Reported Experiences with CardioFlux
Self-reported questionnaire (5 questions scored 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) with a minimum score of 5 and a maximum score of 25.
Time frame: 6 months
Participant Age
Age (years)
Time frame: 6 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
136
Rochester, Minnesota, United States
St. Luke's Health System, Cardiovascular Research
Kansas City, Missouri, United States
Hackensack Meridian Mountainside Medical Center
Montclair, New Jersey, United States
The Christ Hospital
Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
Cleveland Clinic, Cardiovascular Medicine Research
Cleveland, Ohio, United States
Participant Height
in meters; if known
Time frame: 6 months
Participant Weight
in kilograms; if known
Time frame: 6 months
Participant Gender at Birth
Male/Female
Time frame: 6 months
Index of Microvascular Resistance (IMR)
Sensitivity, Specificity, and ROC/AUC for CardioFlux will also be calculated against Index of Microvascular Resistance (IMR), defined as \>25.
Time frame: 6 months
Comparison of bolus vs. continuous thermodilution
Comparison of bolus thermodilution (CFR-bolus) and continuous thermodilution (CFR-cont) against MCG when CFR-cont is available.
Time frame: 6 months
Number of Adverse Events
Safety will be monitored by the reporting of adverse events (related and non-related to the device) throughout the trial.
Time frame: 6 months