Key result
Case series highlights anatomical variations in congenital coronary artery anomalies, including split RCA and dual LAD.
Why the study?
The prognostic significance, range of symptoms, and pathophysiology of congenital coronary artery anomalies remain to be further elucidated despite their known link with sudden cardiac death.
Case Report (n=3)
Highlights the anatomical variations of congenital coronary artery anomalies, which can be incidental findings or hemodynamically significant.
Raises awareness of rare coronary anomalies in practice; extends descriptive literature but leaves management questions open.
Coronary artery anomalies (CAAs) are congenital vascular defects which can remain hidden and asymptomatic over the complete life course of an individual. They are defined as deviations from the normal coronary anatomy regarding the arterial origin, course, or both. Their incidence varies from 1.3% to 5.64% in coronary angiography cohorts, and they can be detected as incidental findings. In certain cases, CAAs can be hemodynamically significant and unfortunately can be proven lethal. Their link with sudden cardiac death, especially in otherwise healthy competitive athletes, is well established, but their prognostic significance, range of symptoms, and pathophysiology remain to be further elucidated. Here, along with a brief review of related literature, we present a series of three cases: one case of an anomalous origin of the right coronary artery (RCA) from the left coronary sinus, one case of a split RCA originating from the left coronary sinus, and one case of a dual left anterior descending (LAD) artery system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ioakeimidis et al. (2021) conducted a case report in Congenital Coronary Artery Anomalies (n=3). Congenital Coronary Artery Anomalies was evaluated. Three cases of congenital coronary artery anomalies were presented, including an anomalous origin of the RCA, a split RCA, and a dual LAD artery system.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: