Coronary artery bypass grafting served as a definitive treatment for recurrent spontaneous coronary artery dissection and cardiogenic shock in a 39-year-old postpartum woman after failed stenting.
Case Report (n=1)
CABG can be a lifesaving and definitive treatment option for recurrent spontaneous coronary artery dissection with hemodynamic instability when percutaneous interventions fail.
ABSTRACT This case report details a rare instance of recurrent spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) in a 39‐year‐old woman following the delivery of twins, leading to cardiogenic shock. SCAD, although occurring most commonly in middle‐aged women (45–52 years), can also occur in young, otherwise healthy women, in association with pregnancy. In this situation, it poses significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenges, particularly during pregnancy or postpartum periods. This patient's emergency coronary angiography revealed double‐vessel SCAD, and initial treatment with a drug‐eluting stent failed. Surgical intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was ultimately necessary due to recurrent dissection and hemodynamic instability. The case underscores the utility of CABG as a definitive treatment for SCAD, particularly when percutaneous interventions are insufficient. Additionally, the report discusses the importance of early diagnosis using advanced imaging techniques and highlights postoperative management, including beta‐blockers to reduce recurrence risk. This case provides insights into SCAD's complex pathophysiology and the critical role of tailored intervention strategies for young women postpartum.
Giovannico et al. (Thu,) conducted a case report in Recurrent spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) (n=1). Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was evaluated. Coronary artery bypass grafting served as a definitive treatment for recurrent spontaneous coronary artery dissection and cardiogenic shock in a 39-year-old postpartum woman after failed stenting.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: