Spontaneous coronary artery dissection-associated takotsubo syndrome: A systematic review of case reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is underdiagnosed and requires comprehensive angiographic findings. Few SCAD occurrences have a comparable clinical appearance as takotsubo syndrome (TTS) or exist simultaneously, making it challenging for clinicians to treat and manage. Case reports lack consolidated data. We examined SCAD-TTS case reports. AIM: To conduct a systematic review of available case reports on SCAD in order to investigate its potential association with TTS. METHODS: SCAD-associated TTS case reports were reviewed after thoroughly screening PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases till January 2023. Case reports described demographics, comorbidities, imaging, management, and results. RESULTS: = 6, > 60 years) were elderly (mean age 56.2 ± 9.07 years, range 36-70 years). Canada has 9 cases, United States 3, Australia 3, Sweden 2, Japan, Denmark, and France 1. Only 5 reports identified emotional stressors in these cases while 4 reports showed physical triggers for TTS. Nine had hypertension, 2 had hyperlipidemia, and 1 had prediabetes. 5 patients (25%) smoked. 10 (50%) troponin-positive myocardial infarction patients reported chest discomfort. 11 (55%) of 20 instances had TTS/SCAD. 12 (60%) of 20 patients exhibited ST elevation and 3 (15%) had T wave inversion on electrocardiogram. 19/20 patients had elevated troponin. 9 (45%) of 20 people had apical akinesis with TTS ballooning on cardiac imaging. All 20 exhibited echocardiographic wall motion abnormalities. 19 (95%) of 20 coronary angiography cases had SCAD. 10 of 19 SCAD patients had left anterior descending, 2 diagonal, and 2 left circumflex coronary artery involvement. 7 of 20 patients had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) data. LVEF averaged 38.78 ± 7.35%. 5 (25%) of the 20 cases underwent dual antiplatelet therapy. Three (15%) of 20 cases experienced occasional ectopic ventricular complexes, Mobitz ll AV block, and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. All 20 cases recovered and survived. CONCLUSION: Given the clinical similarities and challenges in detecting TTS and SCAD, this subset needs more research to raise awareness and reduce morbidity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".