Why the study?
Spontaneous coronary artery dissection is an understudied cause of acute myocardial infarction primarily affecting women, and it is unknown to what extent it is genetically distinct from other cardiovascular diseases such as atherosclerotic CAD.
This GWAS meta-analysis identified 17 genetic risk loci for SCAD, revealing mechanisms involving arterial integrity and tissue-mediated coagulation, and demonstrating a directionally opposite genetic relationship with atherosclerotic coronary artery disease.
SCAD has a distinct genetic basis from CAD; extends GWAS evidence to prioritize sex-specific mechanistic research.
Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is an understudied cause of acute myocardial infarction primarily affecting women. It is not known to what extent SCAD is genetically distinct from other cardiovascular diseases, including atherosclerotic coronary artery disease (CAD). Through a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies including 1917 cases and 9292 controls of European ancestry, we identified 17 risk loci, including 12 new, with odds ratios ranging from 2.04 (95%CI 1.77-2.35) on chr21 to 1.25 (95%CI 1.16-1.35) on chr4. A locus on chr1 containing the tissue factor gene ( F3 ), which is involved in blood coagulation cascade, appears to be specific for SCAD risk. Prioritized genes were mainly expressed in vascular smooth muscle cells and fibroblasts of arteries and are implicated predominantly in extracellular matrix biology (e.g. COL4A1/A2, HTRA1 and TIMP3 ). We found that several variants associated with SCAD had diametrically opposite associations with CAD suggesting that shared biological processes contribute to both diseases but through different mechanisms. We also demonstrated an inferred causal role for high blood pressure, but not other CAD risk factors, in SCAD. Our findings provide novel pathophysiological insights involving arterial integrity and tissue-mediated coagulation in SCAD and set the stage for future specific therapeutics and prevention for this disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adlam et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: