Why the study?
Recurrence is a well-established complication of spontaneous coronary artery dissection, but the exact incidence and correlates of recurrence are unknown.
SCAD recurrence occurs in approximately 7% of patients over medium-term follow-up, and discharge medications do not appear to correlate with recurrence risk.
Recurrence risk informs SCAD counseling; extends observational data but leaves optimal prevention strategies open.
AIM: Recurrence is a well-established complication of spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD). However, the exact incidence and correlates of recurrence are unknown. We, therefore, performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine and consolidate the evidence on the global incidence of SCAD recurrence. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the four major databases (EMBASE, OVID Medline, PubMed and Google Scholar) was performed from their inception to 17 January 2019. We included original research studies, recruiting ≥10 participants, with ≥12 months follow-up that reported data on recurrence in patients with SCAD. RESULTS: Out of 556 studies searched, 19 cohorts (1538 SCAD patients) were included in the analysis. There were 153 cases of de novo recurrence over a mean follow-up period of 31.2 months (95% confidence interval, 25-41 months). Type 1, 2 and 3 SCAD was noted in 33.2, 73.2 and 5.3%, respectively. The involved coronary artery was LMCA, LAD, RCA, LCx and multi-vessel CAD respectively in 3.5%, 53.4%, 19.8%, 20.4% and 12.6% of cases. The overall SCAD de novo recurrence was 7% (ES 0.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.10, I2 = 65.3%). On meta-regression, we found discharge medications at index admission, including β-blockers, ACE inhibitors, statins, as well as baseline cardiac risk factors, did not correlate with recurrence. CONCLUSION: SCAD recurrence is common, occurring in 7% of patients over medium-term follow up. No specific medications at discharge were found to reduce recurrence. Further long-term and prospective data are required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mridha et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: