BACKGROUND: Spontaneous healing of spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery is frequently observed clinically. However, LVEF on presentation and follow-up imaging has not been described. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that LV dysfunction improves at follow-up after initial SCAD presentation. METHODS: We included patients with nonatherosclerotic SCAD prospectively followed at Vancouver General Hospital, who had baseline assessment of LVEF and wall-motion abnormality (WMA) during their index presentation. A subset of these patients had repeat assessment of their ventricular function at follow-up. We compared the baseline LVEF and WMA with follow-up assessments and correlated to long-term cardiovascular outcomes. RESULTS: We included 277 SCAD patients who had baseline ventricular assessment performed. The average age was 52.4 ± 9.4 years, and 90.3% were female. All presented with myocardial infarction (24.2% STEMI, 75.8% NSTEMI). At baseline, the mean LVEF was 55.6% ± 9.1% and 72/277 (26.0%) had LVEF <50%. The presence of WMA was observed in 237/277 (85.6%) cases. Of 164 patients with repeat assessments, the baseline LVEF was 54.6% ± 9.2%, with improvement to 60.7% ± 7.2% at follow-up (P < 0.001). Baseline LVEF of <50% was observed in 29.9%, but only 6.7% had LVEF <50% at follow-up (P < 0.001). Baseline WMA was observed in 87.2% but decreased to 44.5% at follow-up (P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that presentation with STEMI (odds ratio [OR]: 2.71, P = 0.001), troponin I >50 µg/L (OR: 1.02, P = 0.005), and SCAD involvement of the LAD (OR: 2.5, P = 0.002) were independent predictors of baseline LVEF <50%. CONCLUSIONS: In our large, prospectively followed SCAD cohort, the majority of patients presented with WMA and had relatively normal LVEF. Over half had subsequent normalization of WMA and LVEF on follow-up assessment.
BACKGROUND: Spontaneous healing of spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery is frequently observed clinically. However, LVEF on presentation and follow-up imaging has not been described. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that LV dysfunction improves at follow-up after initial SCAD presentation. METHODS: We included patients with nonatherosclerotic SCAD prospectively followed at Vancouver General Hospital, who had baseline assessment of LVEF and wall-motion abnormality (WMA) during their index presentation. A subset of these patients had repeat assessment of their ventricular function at follow-up. We compared the baseline LVEF and WMA with follow-up assessments and correlated to long-term cardiovascular outcomes. RESULTS: We included 277 SCAD patients who had baseline ventricular assessment performed. The average age was 52.4 ± 9.4 years, and 90.3% were female. All presented with myocardial infarction (24.2% STEMI, 75.8% NSTEMI). At baseline, the mean LVEF was 55.6% ± 9.1% and 72/277 (26.0%) had LVEF <50%. The presence of WMA was observed in 237/277 (85.6%) cases. Of 164 patients with repeat assessments, the baseline LVEF was 54.6% ± 9.2%, with improvement to 60.7% ± 7.2% at follow-up (P < 0.001). Baseline LVEF of <50% was observed in 29.9%, but only 6.7% had LVEF <50% at follow-up (P < 0.001). Baseline WMA was observed in 87.2% but decreased to 44.5% at follow-up (P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that presentation with STEMI (odds ratio [OR]: 2.71, P = 0.001), troponin I >50 µg/L (OR: 1.02, P = 0.005), and SCAD involvement of the LAD (OR: 2.5, P = 0.002) were independent predictors of baseline LVEF <50%. CONCLUSIONS: In our large, prospectively followed SCAD cohort, the majority of patients presented with WMA and had relatively normal LVEF. Over half had subsequent normalization of WMA and LVEF on follow-up assessment.
Authors: Fernando Alfonso; Teresa Bastante; Javier Cuesta; Daniel Rodríguez; Amparo Benedicto; Fernando Rivero Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2015-04
Authors: Jacqueline Saw; Eve Aymong; Tara Sedlak; Christopher E Buller; Andrew Starovoytov; Donald Ricci; Simon Robinson; Tycho Vuurmans; Min Gao; Karin Humphries; G B John Mancini Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: A Maehara; G S Mintz; J M Ahmed; S Fuchs; M T Castagna; A D Pichard; L F Satler; R Waksman; W O Suddath; K M Kent; N J Weissman Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2001-08-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Jacqueline Saw; G B John Mancini; Karin Humphries; Anthony Fung; Robert Boone; Andrew Starovoytov; Eve Aymong Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sharonne N Hayes; Esther S H Kim; Jacqueline Saw; David Adlam; Cynthia Arslanian-Engoren; Katherine E Economy; Santhi K Ganesh; Rajiv Gulati; Mark E Lindsay; Jennifer H Mieres; Sahar Naderi; Svati Shah; David E Thaler; Marysia S Tweet; Malissa J Wood Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Abtehale Al-Hussaini; Ahmed M S E K Abdelaty; Gaurav S Gulsin; Jayanth R Arnold; Marcos Garcia-Guimaraes; Diluka Premawardhana; Charley Budgeon; Alice Wood; Nalin Natarajan; Kenneth Mangion; Roby Rakhit; Stephen P Hoole; Thomas W Johnson; Colin Berry; Ian Hudson; Anthony H Gershlick; Andrew Ladwiniec; Jan Kovac; Iain Squire; Nilesh J Samani; Sven Plein; Gerry P McCann; David Adlam Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-06-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Deevia Kotecha; Marcos Garcia-Guimaraes; Diluka Premawardhana; Dario Pellegrini; Clare Oliver-Williams; Vasiliki Bountziouka; Alice Wood; Nalin Natarajan; Robert Jackson; Nathan Chan; Jan Ziaullah; Roby D Rakhit; Stephen P Hoole; Tom W Johnson; Jacek Kadziela; Peter Ludman; Nilesh J Samani; Angela H E M Maas; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Fernando Alfonso; David Adlam Journal: Heart Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 5.994