ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Treatment of Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection in Peripartum Women.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Bidirectionality of Psychosocial Stress and Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Women; Recognition and Strategies for Management.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2025Review
- Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection (SCAD): Unveiling the Enigma of the Unexpected Coronary Event.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2025Review
- Myocardial Infarction with Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries (MINOCA): Current Insights into Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Talin-1 variants associated with spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) highlight how even subtle changes in multi-functional scaffold proteins can manifest in disease.Human molecular genetics · 2024Article
- Peripartum Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection.JACC. Case reports · 2023Article
- Pathophysiology of spontaneous coronary artery dissection: hematoma, not thrombus.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is an infrequent cause of nonobstructive ischemic heart disease in previously healthy young women and therefore is not usually considered in differential diagnoses. The overall incidence of SCAD in angiographic series is between 0.28 and 1.1%, with a clear predominance in young, healthy women (70%) of whom approximately 30% are in the postpartum period. In the United Kingdom, between 2008 and 2012, SCAD was the cause of 27% of acute myocardial infarctions during pregnancy, with a prevalence of 1.81 per 100,000 pregnancies. Regarding the mechanism of arterial obstruction, this may be due to the appearance of an intramural hematoma or to a tear in the intima of the arteries, both spontaneously. Although multiple diagnostic methods are available, it is suggested to include an appropriate anamnesis, an electrocardiogram in the first 10 min after admission to the service or the onset of symptoms, and subsequently, a CT angiography of the coronary arteries or urgent coronary angiography if the hemodynamic status of the patient allows it. Treatment should be individualized for each case; however, the appropriate approach is generally based on two fundamental pillars: conservative medical treatment with antiplatelet agents, beta-blockers, and nitrates, and invasive treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention for stent implantation or balloon angioplasty, if necessary.
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.