Why the study?
SCAD was previously poorly characterized and often misdiagnosed, motivating an updated expert consensus to increase clinical awareness across care settings.
This expert consensus document provides updated recommendations for the diagnosis and management of spontaneous coronary artery dissection to increase clinical awareness.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Greater clinical suspicion for SCAD in women with ACS is warranted; registries confirm it is no longer rare but leave management open.
Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) has been recognized as a relatively uncommon disease for several years. The condition, although described, was poorly characterized in the era before intravascular imaging. As a result, women with SCAD were often misdiagnosed with an atheromatous acute coronary syndrome (ACS), MINOCA, or takotsubo cardiomyopathy. Increasing numbers of recent studies, including large registries, confirm that it should no longer be called a “rare” disease. These studies provided new information about the incidence, pathophysiological concepts, methods of diagnosis, and the treatment of this condition [1–9]. This paper aims to increase the awareness of SCAD among clinicians who take care of patients with acute coronary syndromes in the emergency room, through the catheterization laboratory, cardiology wards, to general practitioners. We present the recommendations regarding the identification of SCAD on angiography, the indications for the use of intravascular imaging, the methods of acute treatment, and long-term post-SCAD management. As prospective randomized trials are not available, these recommendations are based on retrospective analyses of series of patients or reflect experts’ consensus.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kądziela et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: