BACKGROUND: Risks and mechanisms of extension of conservatively managed spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) remain incompletely understood. Study objectives were to (1) evaluate mechanisms of early SCAD evolution through serial angiographic analysis, and (2) determine predictors of early SCAD progression. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective registry study of patients with SCAD managed with an initial conservative strategy (n=240). Patients who experienced significant SCAD progression within 14 days, defined as clinical worsening plus new critical coronary obstruction on repeat angiography, were compared with remaining controls. A total of 42 of 240 (17.5%) experienced significant SCAD progression after index conservative approach; 91% by day 6. Isolated intramural hematoma (IMH) at baseline (no intimal dissection) was observed more frequently in those experiencing progression compared with controls (69.1% versus 44.4%; P=0.004). Multivariable predictors of SCAD progression included lesion severity, multivessel involvement, and isolated IMH. To investigate mechanisms of SCAD evolution, all repeat angiograms ≤14 days were compared with corresponding baselines (n=82 patient angiogram pairs). Of those with isolated IMH at baseline, 20% developed intimal dissection at repeat study. IMH was associated with greater longitudinal lesion extension (11.5 versus 2.8 mm; P=0.01), worsening Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow (-0.8 versus 0.1; P=0.003), and a nonsignificant lower rate of angiographic improvement (20.0% versus 31.3%; P=0.16) compared with the group with baseline intimal dissection. Optical coherence tomography subgroup analysis (n=17) indicated intimo-medial thickness to be lowest at the midpoint of IMH. CONCLUSIONS: Conservatively managed SCAD carries a 1:6 hazard for serious deterioration within 6 days. The risk was higher in those with isolated IMH at baseline. IMH often precedes development of intimal dissection, which has implications for mechanisms of SCAD.
BACKGROUND: Risks and mechanisms of extension of conservatively managed spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) remain incompletely understood. Study objectives were to (1) evaluate mechanisms of early SCAD evolution through serial angiographic analysis, and (2) determine predictors of early SCAD progression. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective registry study of patients with SCAD managed with an initial conservative strategy (n=240). Patients who experienced significant SCAD progression within 14 days, defined as clinical worsening plus new critical coronary obstruction on repeat angiography, were compared with remaining controls. A total of 42 of 240 (17.5%) experienced significant SCAD progression after index conservative approach; 91% by day 6. Isolated intramural hematoma (IMH) at baseline (no intimal dissection) was observed more frequently in those experiencing progression compared with controls (69.1% versus 44.4%; P=0.004). Multivariable predictors of SCAD progression included lesion severity, multivessel involvement, and isolated IMH. To investigate mechanisms of SCAD evolution, all repeat angiograms ≤14 days were compared with corresponding baselines (n=82 patient angiogram pairs). Of those with isolated IMH at baseline, 20% developed intimal dissection at repeat study. IMH was associated with greater longitudinal lesion extension (11.5 versus 2.8 mm; P=0.01), worsening Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow (-0.8 versus 0.1; P=0.003), and a nonsignificant lower rate of angiographic improvement (20.0% versus 31.3%; P=0.16) compared with the group with baseline intimal dissection. Optical coherence tomography subgroup analysis (n=17) indicated intimo-medial thickness to be lowest at the midpoint of IMH. CONCLUSIONS: Conservatively managed SCAD carries a 1:6 hazard for serious deterioration within 6 days. The risk was higher in those with isolated IMH at baseline. IMH often precedes development of intimal dissection, which has implications for mechanisms of SCAD.
Authors: Marcos Garcia-Guimarães; Teresa Bastante; Paula Antuña; César Jimenez; Francisco de la Cuerda; Javier Cuesta; Fernando Rivero; Diluka Premawardhana; David Adlam; Fernando Alfonso Journal: Eur Cardiol Date: 2020-02-26
Authors: Marysia S Tweet; Jennifer Lewey; Nathaniel R Smilowitz; Carl H Rose; Patricia J M Best Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Siiri E Iismaa; Stephanie Hesselson; Lucy McGrath-Cadell; David W Muller; Diane Fatkin; Eleni Giannoulatou; Jason Kovacic; Robert M Graham Journal: Heart Lung Circ Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 2.975
Authors: Marios Margaritis; Francesca Saini; Ania A Baranowska-Clarke; Sarah Parsons; Aryan Vink; Charley Budgeon; Natalie Allcock; Bart E Wagner; Nilesh J Samani; Jan von der Thüsen; Jan Lukas Robertus; Mary N Sheppard; David Adlam Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 13.081
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