Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 628

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection: Revascularization Versus Conservative Therapy

Open access
Tweet, Marysia S., Eleid, Mackram F., Best, Patricia J.M., Lennon, Ryan J., Lerman, Amir, Rihal, Charanjit S., Holmes, David R., Hayes, Sharonne N., Gulati, Rajiv·2014·Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract

Background—: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a nonatherosclerotic acute coronary syndrome for which optimal management remains undefined. Methods and Results—: We performed a retrospective study of 189 patients presenting with a first SCAD episode. We evaluated outcomes according to initial management: (1) revascularization versus conservative therapy and (2) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus conservative therapy stratified by vessel flow at presentation. Demographics were similar in revascularization versus conservative (mean age, 44±9 years; women 92% both groups), but vessel occlusion was more frequent in revascularization (44/95 versus 18/94). There was 1 in-hospital death (revascularization) and 1 late death (conservative). Procedural failure rate was 53% in those managed with PCI. In the subgroup of patients presenting with preserved vessel flow, rates of PCI failure were similarly high (50%), and 6 (13%) required emergency coronary artery bypass grafting. In the conservative group, 85 of 94 (90%) had an uneventful in-hospital course, but 9 (10%) experienced early SCAD progression requiring revascularization. Kaplan–Meier estimated 5-year rates of target vessel revascularization and recurrent SCAD were no different in revascularization versus conservative therapy (30% versus 19%; P =0.06 and 23% versus 31%; P =0.7). Conclusions—: PCI for SCAD is associated with high rates of technical failure even in those presenting with preserved vessel flow and does not protect against target vessel revascularization or recurrent SCAD. A strategy of conservative management with prolonged observation may be preferable.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circinterventions.114.001659

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 628

Metadata

Authors
Tweet, M. S., Eleid, M. F., Best, P. J. M., Lennon, R. J., Lerman, A., Rihal, C. S., Holmes, D. R., Hayes, S. N., & Gulati, R.
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Published
2014-12
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
777-786
ISSN
  • 1941-7632 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7640
OpenAlex
W2614429085
Cited by
628
References
0
FWCI
24.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection: Revascularization Versus Conservative Therapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circinterventions.114.001659
The paper
Tweet, M. S., Eleid, M. F., Best, P. J. M., Lennon, R. J., Lerman, A., Rihal, C. S., Holmes, D. R., Hayes, S. N., & Gulati, R. (2014). Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection: Revascularization Versus Conservative Therapy. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.114.001659

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.