ReviewMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2024
Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection in Clinical Practice: Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Approaches.
Review in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection and Takotsubo Syndrome: Converging Mechanisms, Diagnostic Pitfalls, and a Unified Clinical Algorithm.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical Decision-Making and Imaging-Guided Follow-Up Strategies in Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Gender Disparities in Ischemic Heart Disease Management: Underdiagnosis in Women and Differences in Treatment.Cureus · 2025Review
- Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection Unveiled: Pathophysiology, Imaging, and Evolving Management Strategies.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a cause of myocardial infarction without obstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA). It is determined by a coronary artery wall layers separation, which occurs regardless of traumatic or iatrogenic injuries. Even if it is often a missed diagnosis, its incidence is growing along with the improvement of intracoronary imaging techniques that allow for better detection. The main angiographical classification distinguishes three different forms, with slightly different prognoses at long-term follow up. SCAD is a recurrent condition, severely hampering the life quality of affected patients. The predominantly young age of patients with SCAD and the high prevalence of females among them have made the topic increasingly important, especially regarding therapeutic strategies. According to the data, the most recommended treatment is conservative, based on the use of antiplatelet agents and supportive anti-ischemic therapy. However, there are conflicting opinions concerning the need for dual antiplatelet therapy and its duration. In the case of invasive treatment, the choice between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft depends on the patient's clinical stability and the interested vessel. The purpose of the current review is to revise the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying SCAD and the current knowledge of its treatment.
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.