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.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in mechanical circulatory support utilization for spontaneous coronary artery dissection-related cardiogenic shock.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Clinical Decision-Making and Imaging-Guided Follow-Up Strategies in Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Spontaneous coronary artery dissection in an underrepresented region: insights from the Serbian (RS) SCAD registry.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Spontaneous coronary artery dissection: dissecting an underdiagnosed problem.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025Review
- Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection Unveiled: Pathophysiology, Imaging, and Evolving Management Strategies.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection: A Narrative Review of Epidemiology and Public Health Implications.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Acute Myocardial Infarction Due to Spontaneous Coronary Dissection in Pregnancy: A Case Report and Management Considerations.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Teaching gender medicine can enhance the quality of healthcare.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.