Key result
LVAD successfully bridges SCAD-induced cardiogenic shock to heart transplantation.
Case Report (n=1)
No
LVAD can serve as an effective bridge to heart transplantation in patients with severe SCAD and cardiogenic shock refractory to surgical revascularization.
Primary spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) as cause of acute myocardial infarction is a rare entity with complex pathophysiology. SCAD must be considered every time that a healthy young patient presents an onset of acute myocardial ischemic syndrome or sudden death. Mostly it appears in young women without traditional risk factors for coronary artery disease and a significant proportion of them are hutted during the peripartum or early postpartum period. SCAD is frequently fatal and a great number of known cases have been diagnosed at necroscopy. The quick recognition of SCAD as cause of acute myocardial ischemia in a young patient is important to establish the best medical/surgical treatment between the different therapeutic attitudes. We describe the case occurred to a young low cardiac risk woman who suffered of idiopathic SCAD and was successfully treated by heart transplantation few days after that a conventional surgical myocardial revascularization had been attempted. Waiting for cardiac transplantation the patient survived several days, thanks to a mechanical left ventricular assist device (LVAD). The following hospital course was uncomplicated. To our knowledge, this is the second case of SCAD treated successfully by LVAD and orthotopic heart transplantation reported in literature.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferrari et al. (2005) conducted a case report in Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) (n=1). LVAD and heart transplantation was evaluated on Survival to discharge. A 32-year-old woman with spontaneous coronary artery dissection and cardiogenic shock was successfully treated with a left ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplantation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: