Why the study?
Basic pathophysiologic mechanisms, contributing factors, and treatment of spontaneous coronary artery dissection remain poorly understood despite advancements in recognition and diagnosis.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Review
Establishes a patient-centered SCAD framework; leaves open critical gaps in pathophysiology and therapy for prospective registry studies.
Despite marked advancements in the recognition and diagnosis of spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) over the past decade, knowledge of the basic pathophysiologic mechanisms of disease, contributing factors, and treatment continue to be poorly understood. We describe significant research gaps in our knowledge of SCAD and introduce strategies including the role of patient advocacy, independent registries, and creation of diverse centers of excellence to bridge the gap in clinical care, research, and outcomes. Lastly, we introduce an innovative patient-centered clinical care and research framework established through the SCAD Alliance and International Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection registry as a model for advancing knowledge of SCAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Crousillat et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: