Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38390446›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection in women in the generative period: clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcome-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Svetlana Apostolović, Aleksandra Ignjatović, Dragana Stanojević, Danijela Djordjević Radojković, Miroslav Nikolić, Jelena Milošević, Tamara Filipović, Katarina Kostić, Ivana Miljković, Aleksandra Djoković and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Spontaneous coronary artery dissection: dissecting an underdiagnosed problem.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Teaching gender medicine can enhance the quality of healthcare.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Svetlana ApostolovićClinic for Cardiology, University Clinical Center Nis, Nis, Serbia.
Aleksandra IgnjatovićMedical Faculty, University of Nis, Nis, Serbia.
Dragana StanojevićClinic for Cardiology, University Clinical Center Nis, Nis, Serbia.
Danijela Djordjević RadojkovićClinic for Cardiology, University Clinical Center Nis, Nis, Serbia.
Miroslav NikolićClinic for Cardiology, University Clinical Center Nis, Nis, Serbia.
Jelena MiloševićClinic for Cardiology, University Clinical Center Nis, Nis, Serbia.
Tamara FilipovićMedical Faculty, University of Nis, Nis, Serbia.
Katarina KostićClinic for Cardiology, University Clinical Center Nis, Nis, Serbia.
Ivana MiljkovićClinic for Cardiology, University Clinical Center Nis, Nis, Serbia.
Aleksandra DjokovićDepartment of Cardiology, Clinical Hospital Bežanijska Kosa, Belgrade, Serbia.
Gordana KrljanacMedical Faculty, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Zlatko MehmedbegovićMedical Faculty, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Ivan IlićMedical Faculty, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Srdjan AleksandrićMedical Faculty, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Valeria ParadiesDepartment of Cardiology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
University of Nis · RSUniversity of Belgrade · RSInstitute for Cardiovascular Diseases of Vojvodina · RSMaasstad Ziekenhuis · NLUniversity Hospital Medical Center Bezanijska kosa · RS

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a non-traumatic and non-iatrogenic separation of the coronary arterial wall. Materials and methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis is reported following the PRISMA guidelines and is registered in the PROSPERO database. A literature search was focused on female patients in generative period (16-55 of age) with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) caused by SCAD, and comparison from that database NP-SCAD (spontaneous coronary artery dissection in non pregnant women) and P-SCAD (spontaneous coronary artery dissection in pregnant women). Results: 14 studies with 2,145 females in the generative period with ACS caused by SCAD were analyzed. The median age was 41 years (33.4-52.3 years). The most common risk factor was previous smoking history in 24.9% cases. The most common clinical presentation of ACS was STEMI in 47.4%. Conservative treatment was reported in 41.1%. PCI was performed in 32.7%, and 3.8% of patients had CABG surgery. LAD was the most frequently affected (50.5%). The prevalence of composite clinical outcomes including mortality, non-fatal MI and recurrent SCAD was 3.3% (95% CI: 1.4-5.1), 37.7% (95% CI: 1.9-73.4) and 15.2% (95% CI: 9.1-21.3) of patients. P-SCAD compared to NP-SCAD patients more frequently had STEMI (OR = 3.16; 95% CI: 2.30-4.34; Conclusion: The results of this meta-analysis indicated that patients with P-SCAD more frequently had STEMI, and events more frequently involved left main and LAD compared to NP-SCAD patients. Women with NP-SCAD were significantly more often treated conservatively compared to P-SCAD patients. P-SCAD compared to NP-SCAD patients did not have significantly higher mortality rates or recurrent coronary dissection.

Indexed as

female population in the generative periodoutcomepregnancyspontaneous coronary artery dissectiontreatment

Identifiers

PMID38390446
PMCPMC10882101
OpenAlexW4391649743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.