The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection: Revascularization Versus Conservative Therapy
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes
Byrne, R. A., Rossello, X., Coughlan, J. J., Barbato, E., Berry, C., Chieffo, A., Claeys, M. J., Dan, G.-A., Dweck, M. R., Galbraith, M., et al. (2023) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad191 · Cited by 5,333
Virani, S. S., Newby, L. K., Arnold, S. V., Bittner, V., Brewer, L. C., Demeter, S. H., Dixon, D. L., Fearon, W. F., Hess, B., Johnson, H. M., et al. (2023) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001168 · Cited by 1,598
Acute Myocardial Infarction in Women: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association
Mehta, L. S., Beckie, T. M., DeVon, H. A., Grines, C. L., Krumholz, H. M., Johnson, M. N., Lindley, K. J., Vaccarino, V., Wang, T. Y., Watson, K. E., et al. (2016) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000351 · Cited by 1,244
Adlam, D., Alfonso, F., Maas, A., Vrints, C., Writing Committee, al-Hussaini, A., Bueno, H., Capranzano, P., Gevaert, S., Hoole, S. P., et al. (2018) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy080 · Cited by 689
Virani, S. S., Newby, L. K., Arnold, S. V., Bittner, V., Brewer, L. C., Demeter, S. H., Dixon, D. L., Fearon, W. F., Hess, B., Johnson, H. M., et al. (2023) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2023.04.003 · Cited by 596
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.