ReviewCureus2021
Pathophysiology of Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection Determines Anticoagulation Strategy.
Review in Cureus, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Case Report: ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Third Trimester Pregnancy.Clinical practice and cases in emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Advances in the Management of Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection (SCAD): A Comprehensive Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Pathophysiology of spontaneous coronary artery dissection: hematoma, not thrombus.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Overcoming High Impedance in the Transitional Area of the Distal Great Cardiac Vein during Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmia.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Article
- The Conundrum of Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy in Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection.Journal of investigative medicine high impact case reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spontaneous coronary dissection is an uncommon disorder, lacking convincing pathophysiologic evidence. Scientific statements and state-of-the-art articles suggest intramural hematoma from bleeding vasa vasorum is the cause. Evidence is based on limited invasive evaluation with optical coherence tomography. This assumption, therefore, suggests anti-coagulation be discontinued. Mechanical shear forces, intraluminal pressures do not support bleeding vasa vasorum closing a higher luminal pressure vessel. The endothelium's role in inflammation, thrombosis, and repair suggests the pathophysiology is failure to repair endothelium with the lack of repair as the nidus of disruption. A tear ensues and can spontaneously reseal. The lack of inflammatory cells in pathological specimens and association with another poorly understood disease fibromuscular dysplasia supports the etiology of both entities as failure to replace endothelium. The endothelium is the fulcrum of both inflammation and thrombosis. The ability to heal the rift supports conservative therapy. Anticoagulants and antiplatelet reduce thrombosis and inflammation which will ensue when the endothelium is disrupted. These agents will substitute for the failed endothelium allowing thrombosis to be kept in check, reduce inflammation, and promote healing. This thesis and the state-of-the-art articles do not present clinical outcome data. Both support conservative interventions. Anticoagulation recommendations are however in opposite realms. Failure to repair endothelium suggest additional therapies of statins, exercise, smoking cessation will increase circulating stem cells may reduce future events and slow the progression of fibromuscular dysplasia. Future directions in understanding this disease and new therapies requires measurement of repair mechanisms such as the quantity of circulating endothelial progenitor cells.
Indexed as
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.