4.3 Article

Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection: Angiographic Follow-Up and Long-Term Clinical Outcome in a Predominantly Medically Treated Population

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.26383

关键词

percutaneous coronary intervention; antiplatelet therapy; conservative management; myocardial infarction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveWe sought to assess the angiographic and long-term clinical outcomes in a predominantly medically treated population with spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD). BackgroundThere are little data on the angiographic and long-term outcome in patients with SCAD. MethodsWe studied 64 patients with SCAD (mean age 53 years, 94% females, three peripartum) with acute coronary syndrome who were treated using coronary bypass grafting (n=1), percutaneous coronary intervention (n=7), or medical therapy (n=56). A repeat angiogram was performed in 40/64 (63%) patients. The median clinical follow-up was 4.5 years. ResultsFive (8%) patients had a major cardiac event. One patient with peripartum left main SCAD and cardiogenic shock died during PCI. One patient with conservatively treated SCAD of the posterior descending artery suffered out-of-hospital cardiac arrest 16 days after the initial angiogram but survived. Three patients experienced a second SCAD in another vessel 3.7, 4.7, and 7.9 years after the index event while the initial dissection had healed. Thirty medically treated patients underwent a scheduled repeat angiogram showing healing of the dissection in all but one patient. After a median follow-up of 4.5 (1.8-8.4) years, all 63 patients surviving the index event were alive and free of symptoms suggestive of myocardial ischemia. ConclusionsIn general, the long-term outcome of patients with SCAD is excellent, and medical therapy can be safely applied in the majority of patients. However, SCAD can be a life-threatening and sometimes catastrophic event, and some patients experience early or late complications including SCAD of another vessel. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据