ReviewCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2025
Evaluating the efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in spontaneous coronary artery dissection: a scoping review.
Review in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of a multidisciplinary clinical pathway on the management of spontaneous coronary artery dissection.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a poorly-studied cause of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), particularly in women. SCAD is a rare cause of ACS that can lead to myocardial injury due to SCAD. This review evaluates optimal antiplatelet therapy for SCAD patients. There is no clear consensus regarding the optimum antiplatelet medication regimen and treatment duration for SCAD despite current American Heart Association (AHA) consensus guidelines recommending 12-month regimen of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of a P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin for patients following myocardial infarction (MI). The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of DAPT compared to using a single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) as part of the medical armamentarium to treat SCAD. Methods: This review included only observational studies published in English and excluded randomized controlled trials. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Ovid, and SCOPUS was conducted to identify studies that examined SCAD outcomes including mortality, recurrence, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) between 2000-2023 after antiplatelet therapy was administered. Based on the documentation in various studies, only 17 relevant studies were identified in which SAPT (primarily aspirin) and DAPT (aspirin combined with a P2Y Results: DAPT treatment was associated with a worse prognosis than SAPT 12 months after patients presented with SCAD. A key observation was the prevalence of antiplatelet treatment in SCAD patients, with DAPT prescribed in the majority of cases. DAPT demonstrated significantly higher rates of mortality (4.96% Conclusions: In patients treated with antiplatelet therapy, adverse events that include unstable angina, mortality, and repeat revascularization were greater in patients with more aggressive antiplatelet therapy consisting for safety and efficacy of DAPT compared with these treated with SAPT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.