Key result
SCAD care pathway linked to 76% conservative management and higher beta-blocker adherence alongside similar MACE.
Why the study?
The clinical impact of a dedicated multidisciplinary SCAD care pathway on safety, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and recurrence rates compared with standard acute coronary syndrome management remained to be evaluated.
Does a dedicated multidisciplinary SCAD care pathway improve treatment patterns and reduce MACE compared to standard acute coronary syndrome management in patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection?
Cohort (n=117)
No
Does a dedicated multidisciplinary SCAD care pathway improve treatment patterns and reduce MACE compared to standard acute coronary syndrome management in patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection?
Implementation of a multidisciplinary SCAD care pathway safely promotes conservative management and targeted secondary prevention without increasing MACE compared to standard ACS care.
May support dedicated SCAD pathways to increase conservative management without raising MACE; leaves open randomized confirmation.
Aim To evaluate the clinical impact of a dedicated multidisciplinary spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) care pathway compared with standard acute coronary syndrome management, focusing on safety, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and recurrence rates in patients with SCAD. Methods In this retrospective observational cohort study, 117 SCAD patients were included: 63 managed within a SCAD-specific care pathway and 54 receiving standard care prior to or independent of its implementation. The SCAD pathway included protocolized angiographic diagnosis, conservative management when feasible, individualized medical therapy, screening for fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) and systemic disorders, and SCAD-specific rehabilitation with structured follow-up. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 1‑year follow-up. Results Patients in the SCAD pathway group were more often managed conservatively in the acute setting (76% vs. 24%, p < 0.001), had significantly lower rates of stent implantation (8% vs. 65%, p < 0.001), and were less frequently prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy (19% vs. 96%, p < 0.001). At 12-month follow-up, beta-blocker adherence was higher (76% vs. 41%, p < 0.001), aspirin use was lower (38% vs. 59%, p < 0.001), and recurrent SCAD occurred numerically less often but not statistically significantly (3% vs. 9%, p = 0.231). MACE rates were similar between groups, and no deaths occurred. FMD screening was more common in the pathway group (92% vs. 17%, p < 0.001), facilitating diagnosis and tailored long-term therapy. Conclusion Implementation of a standardized SCAD care pathway was associated with a safe conservative approach, more targeted secondary prevention, improved beta-blocker adherence, and a trend toward fewer recurrent SCAD events. These findings support integration of SCAD-specific multidisciplinary care into routine clinical practice to improve diagnostic precision and long-term outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Al-Gully et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) (n=117). Multidisciplinary SCAD clinical care pathway vs. Standard acute coronary syndrome care was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 1-year follow-up. A multidisciplinary clinical care pathway for spontaneous coronary artery dissection significantly increased conservative management (76% vs. 24%) and beta-blocker adherence (76% vs. 41%) compared to standard care, with similar 1-year MACE rates.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: