Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection in Patients With a Provisional Diagnosis of Takotsubo Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Takotsubo syndrome (TTS) mimics acute myocardial infarction in the absence of culprit coronary artery disease and is more common in women. Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) shares a predilection for women, can result in left ventricular wall motion abnormalities similar to TTS, and may manifest subtle angiographic findings. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of SCAD misdiagnosed as TTS. Methods and Results Coronary angiograms of patients presenting with a provisional diagnosis of TTS were retrospectively reviewed by an independent expert blinded to left ventriculography and the specific purpose of the study to assess for SCAD. TTS was defined using European Society for Cardiology criteria. SCAD was categorized according to the Saw angiographic classification. Among 80 women with a provisional diagnosis of TTS, 2 (2.5%) met angiographic criteria for definite SCAD. Both dissections were located in the distal left anterior descending coronary artery and classified as type 2b. The wall motion abnormality was apical in both cases. An additional 7 patients (9%) had angiography that was indeterminate for SCAD. Clinical characteristics of patients with and without SCAD were similar. Conclusions Among patients with a provisional diagnosis of TTS, definite SCAD in the left anterior descending coronary artery was present in 2.5% of cases, and coronary angiography was indeterminate for SCAD in an additional 9%. Careful review of coronary angiography may avoid missed diagnoses of SCAD in patients with myocardial infarction, nonobstructive coronary arteries, and wall motion abnormalities consistent with TTS. Intracoronary imaging maybe considered to establish a definitive diagnosis of SCAD when angiography is inconclusive.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".