Key result
Percutaneous septal closure effectively treats young ACS patients with paradoxical embolism from right-to-left shunts.
Why the study?
ACS in young patients without coronary atherosclerosis or other identifiable causes is poorly characterized, particularly regarding paradoxical embolism as an etiology.
Case Report
Paradoxical embolism should be considered in the differential diagnosis of ACS in young patients without coronary atherosclerosis, for which percutaneous septal closure may serve as secondary prevention.
Right-to-left shunts may underlie cryptogenic ACS in young adults; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in young patients (<50 years) accounts for 2%-10% of all ACS presentations. We describe a case series of young patients who presented with ACS in the absence of coronary atherosclerosis or other identifiable causes such as spontaneous coronary artery dissection and Takotsubo syndrome. Further diagnostic evaluation, often initiated after cryptogenic stroke or a recurrent systemic embolic event, revealed the presence of significant right-to-left shunting because of an atrial septal defect or patent foramen ovale. After exclusion of other etiologies for thromboembolic events (ie, atrial fibrillation, endocarditis, thrombophilia, and antiphospholipid syndrome), patients underwent successful percutaneous septal closure. These cases underscore the importance of considering paradoxical embolism in the differential diagnosis of ACS in young patients without other etiologies. Percutaneous septal closure may be considered for secondary prevention when paradoxical embolism is suspected.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bouziani et al. (2026) conducted a case report in Acute Coronary Syndrome. Percutaneous septal closure was evaluated. Percutaneous septal closure was successfully performed in young patients (<50 years) presenting with acute coronary syndrome caused by paradoxical embolism due to right-to-left shunting.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: