ReviewCJC open2020
A Review of the Evidence for Treatment of Myocardial Infarction With Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries.
Review in CJC open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries due to a type-A thymoma: A case report.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Recurrent Angina in a Patient With Myocardial Infarction With Non-obstructive Coronary Arteries.Cureus · 2023Article
- Editorial: MINOCA: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, Clinical Management and Evolution Towards Precision Medicine.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Coronary vasospasm: A narrative review.World journal of cardiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myocardial infarction (MI) with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is reported in 6% of patients with acute MI referred for catheterization. Because of the complex etiology and a limited amount of evidence, the treatment of MINOCA remains elusive. The etiology of MINOCA manifests from several causes including plaque disruption or erosion, epicardial coronary artery vasospasm, and coronary microvascular dysfunction. In addition, spontaneous coronary artery dissection, takotsubo, and myocarditis have been identified as contributing to the diagnosis of MINOCA. Patients with MINOCA are frequently young, non-white females with fewer traditional risk factors compared with those with an MI caused by obstructive coronary disease. Moreover, women who suffered an MI are 5 times more likely to be diagnosed with MINOCA with a trend for worse outcomes compared with men. The increased recognition/diagnosis of MINOCA has highlighted a gap in our understanding of the treatment of MINOCA. This review identified that there is a paucity of evidence on treatment strategies for patients clinically diagnosed with MINOCA, but more importantly that MINOCA should be viewed as a "syndrome" with many different pathologic causes. This suggests that a standard protocol may not be useful for patients with MINOCA. Given the ongoing debate over the complexity of MINOCA, the main focus in the management of MINOCA should be to identify the underlying mechanism for targeted therapies that may optimize outcomes.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.