Coronary angiographic manifestations of fibromuscular dysplasia and clinical outcomes in patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) is a common predisposing condition for spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD), which is an important cause of myocardial infarction (MI) in young to middle-aged women. However, its impact on clinical presentation, coronary anatomies, and outcomes have not been reported. Purpose To evaluate coronary angiographic characteristics and clinical outcomes in SCAD patients with or without underlying extracoronary FMD. Methods We retrospectively analyzed patients enrolled in our Vancouver SCAD registries who were screened for extracoronary FMD. Extracoronary FMD was defined as the presence of multifocal FMD on catheter or noninvasive angiography (computed tomographic or magnetic resonance imaging) in ≥1 extracoronary vascular beds. We reviewed coronary angiograms for manifestations of coronary FMD that were previously described (i.e. irregular stenosis, smooth stenosis, dilatation/ectasia, and tortuosity). Severe tortuosity was defined as ≥2 consecutive bends ≥180° at any cardiac cycle or 360° loop in ≥1 epicardial artery that was ≥2 mm in diameter. Clinical outcomes of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, MI, and stroke, were evaluated. Results We included 346 SCAD patients, 250 (72.3%) had extracoronary FMD. Patients with FMD were older (54.6±9.5 vs. 51.7±9.8 years) and more likely to have prior history of MI (7.2% vs. 1.0%, p=0.047) and stroke (4.4% vs. 0%, p=0.081) compared with non-FMD patients. The proportion of multivessel SCAD and TIMI flow was not different between groups, but type 3 SCAD was more commonly observed in FMD group (11.6% vs. 3.1%, p=0.026). On coronary angiography, severe tortuosity was more prevalent in patients with extracoronary FMD (58.4% vs. 36.5%, p<0.001), whereas rates of irregular stenosis, smooth stenosis, and dilatation/ectasia were not significantly different (Figure). Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 13.2% of FMD and 15.6% of non-FMD group, with similar success rates (75.8% vs. 69.2%, p=0.65). In-hospital and long-term MACE rate at median follow-up of 1032 (IQR 453–1096) days were not different between FMD and non-FMD groups (in-hospital: 5.6% vs. 8.3%, p=0.492; long-term: 19.6% vs. 15.6%, p=0.185). Conclusion In SCAD patients, severe coronary tortuosity was more prevalent in patients with FMD than those without. Despite the complex coronary anatomy, FMD was not associated with worse outcomes. Differences in coronary manifestations Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Canadian Institutes of Health Research
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".