ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Coronary Artery Anomalies Revisited: Description of the Types, Pathophysiology and Treatment Options Based on Latest Guidelines.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary artery anomalies (CAAs) are a rare but clinically significant group of congenital abnormalities that are associated with myocardial ischaemia, malignant arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death, particularly in young people and athletes. Despite increasing recognition of these conditions and advances in cardiovascular imaging, there are still significant challenges regarding their classification, risk stratification and management, particularly with respect to surgical indications. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current evidence on the classification, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of CAAs, with a particular focus on surgical decision-making and contemporary guideline recommendations. A systematic literature search was conducted up to February 2025 using PubMed and Google Scholar. Priority was given to international guidelines, consensus statements, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large observational studies. CAAs encompass a broad spectrum of anatomical variants and clinical presentations. Among these, anomalies of coronary origin are the most extensively studied. Surgical management is well established for coronary arteries arising from the pulmonary artery, particularly for anomalous left coronary artery from the pulmonary artery (ALCAPA). Substantial advances have also been made in the diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment of anomalous aortic origin of a coronary artery (AAOCA), which has become a major focus of contemporary guideline recommendations. For patients with AAOCA, surgical correction, including unroofing, coronary reimplantation or coronary artery bypass grafting, is recommended for individuals with symptoms and/or high-risk anatomical features. In contrast, the diagnosis and management of myocardial bridging, coronary artery fistulas, and coronary artery ectasia remain controversial, with considerable variability in the indications for medical, percutaneous, and surgical treatment. The management of CAAs is an evolving field. While there is consensus for a limited number of anomalies, most cases still require individualised decision-making. It is essential to develop standardised diagnostic frameworks, improved risk stratification tools and outcome-based management criteria. A multidisciplinary, evidence-based approach involving cardiologists, cardiac imagers, interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons is crucial in order to optimise patient outcomes and reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, including sudden cardiac death.
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.