ReviewNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2025
Spontaneous coronary artery dissection: dissecting an underdiagnosed problem.
Review in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2025. 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.
- Beyond the catheter: patient selection and pathways in complex interventional cardiology.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2026Article
- Prasugrel: Reassessing Its Role in Contemporary Antiplatelet Therapy.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2026Review
- Advancing cardiovascular care-key insights from the Netherlands Heart Journal 2025.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2026Article
- Spontaneous coronary artery dissection in an underrepresented region: insights from the Serbian (RS) SCAD registry.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Bridging the Gap: Time to Integrate Sex- and Gender-Specific Insights into Research and Practice.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) occurs in 1-4% of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). In SCAD, an intramural hematoma compresses the true lumen of the coronary artery, leading to ischemia and, even acute myocardial infarction.Approximately, 90% percent of SCAD patients are premenopausal women without classical risk factors for atherosclerosis. The gold standard for diagnosis is invasive coronary angiography and optical coherence tomography or intravascular ultrasound can be useful tools to confirm the diagnosis. Coronary intervention with stent placement is generally not recommended unless there is complete occlusion of the coronary artery with ongoing ischemia. In the acute phase, antiplatelet therapy and beta-blockers are advised, which are usually continued for life. Despite medical treatment, 10-20% of SCAD patients experience a recurrence within 4 years. Nearly two-thirds of SCAD patients have fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) based on CT angiography. Current treatment recommendations are based on expert opinion. Therapy and follow-up are advised to include at least one antiplatelet agent, a beta-blocker, screening for FMD, cardiac rehabilitation and among patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction ACE inhibitor or aldosterone receptor blocker. Randomized controlled trials have been initiated to evaluate the treatment effects of beta-blocker and antiplatelet therapy in SCAD patients.
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.