Spontaneous coronary artery dissection: Current state of the science: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association

© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc. Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) has emerged as an important cause of acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, and sudden death, particularly among young women and individuals with few conventional atherosclerotic risk factors. Patient-initiated research has spurred increased awareness of SCAD, and improved diagnostic capabilities and findings from large case series have led to changes in approaches to initial and long-term management and increasing evidence that SCAD not only is more common than previously believed but also must be evaluated and treated differently from atherosclerotic myocardial infarction. High rates of recurrent SCAD; its association with female sex, pregnancy, and physical and emotional stress triggers; and concurrent systemic arteriopathies, particularly fibromuscular dysplasia, highlight the differences in clinical characteristics of SCAD compared with atherosclerotic disease. Recent insights into the causes of, clinical course of, treatment options for, outcomes of, and associated conditions of SCAD and the many persistent knowledge gaps are presented

Gender differences in presentation and diagnosis of chest pain in primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Research related to gender differences in regard to Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) has been mainly conducted in hospital but not in primary care settings. We aimed to analyse gender differences in aetiology and clinical characteristics of chest pain and to provide gender related symptoms and signs associated with CHD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We included 1212 consecutive patients with chest pain aged 35 years and older attending 74 general practitioners (GPs). GPs recorded symptoms and findings of each patient and provided follow up information. An independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient and decided about the aetiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify clinical predictors that help to rule in or out CHD in women and men.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Women showed more psychogenic disorders (women 11,2%, men 7.3%, p = 0.02), men suffered more from CHD (women 13.0%, men 17.2%, p = 0.04), trauma (women 1.8%, men 5.1%, p < 0.001) and pneumonia/pleurisy (women 1.3%, men 3.0%, p = 0.04) Men showed significantly more often chest pain localised on the right side of the chest (women 9.1%, men 25.0%, p = 0.01). For both genders known clinical vascular disease, pain worse with exercise and age were associated positively with CHD. In women pain duration above one hour was associated positively with CHD, while shorter pain durations showed an association with CHD in men. In women negative associations were found for stinging pain and in men for pain depending on inspiration and localised muscle tension.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We found gender differences in regard to aetiology, selected clinical characteristics and association of symptoms and signs with CHD in patients presenting with chest pain in a primary care setting. Further research is necessary to elucidate whether these differences would support recommendations for different diagnostic approaches for CHD according to a patient's gender.</p

Gender bias revisited: new insights on the differential management of chest pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Few data exist from a primary care setting whether male patients are treated differently than female patients. We examined whether there are gender differences in general physicians' (GPs) initial assessment and subsequent management of patients with chest pain, and how these differences can be explained</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a prospective study with 1212 consecutive chest pain patients. The study was conducted in 74 primary care offices in Germany from October 2005 to July 2006. After a follow up period of 6 months, an independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient and decided about the etiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment (delayed type-reference standard). We adjusted gender differences of six process indicators for different models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>GPs tended to assume that CHD is the cause of chest pain more often in male patients and referred more men for an exercise test (women 4.1%, men 7.3%, p = 0.02) and to the hospital (women 2.9%, men 6.6%, p < 0.01). These differences remained when adjusting for age and cardiac risk factors but ceased to exist after adjusting for the typicality of chest pain.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>While observed gender differences can not be explained by differences in age, CHD prevalence, and underlying risk factors, the less typical symptom presentation in women might be an underlying factor. However this does not seem to result in suboptimal management in women but rather in overuse of services for men. We consider our conclusions rather hypothesis generating and larger studies will be necessary to prove our proposed model.</p

Gender Differences in Symptoms of Myocardial Ischaemia

Aims Better understanding of symptoms of myocardial ischaemia is needed to improve timeliness of treatment for acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Although researchers have suggested sex differences exist in ischaemic symptoms, methodological issues prevent conclusions. Using percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) balloon inflation as a model of myocardial ischaemia, we explored sex differences in reported symptoms of ischaemia. Methods and results Patients having non-emergent PCI, but not haemodynamic instability or left bundle branch block or non-acute coronary occlusion, were prospectively recruited. Pre-procedure, descriptions of pre-existing symptoms were obtained using open-ended questioning. Inflation was maintained for 2 min or until moderate discomfort or clinical instability occurred. During inflation, subjects were exhaustively questioned about their symptoms. Concurrent ECG data were collected. The final sample was 305 [39.7% women; mean age 63.9 (±10.6)]. No sex differences were found in rates of chest or typical ischaemic discomfort, regardless of ischaemic status. Women were significantly more likely to report throat/jaw discomfort [odds ratio: 2.91; 95% confidence interval: 1.58–5.37] even after statistical adjustment for clinical and demographic variables. Conclusion This prospective study with ECG-affirmed ischaemia found no statistically significant differences in women\u27s and men\u27s rates of chest and other typical symptoms during ischaemia, although women were more likely to experience throat and jaw discomfort. Currently both popular press and some patient education materials suggest women experience myocardial ischaemia differently from men. Steps to ensure women and health professionals are alert for the classic symptoms of myocardial ischaemia in women, as well as men, may be warranted

Chest pain in primary care: is the localization of pain diagnostically helpful in the critical evaluation of patients? - A cross sectional study

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Traditional textbooks still assign pain localization a certain discriminative role in the differential diagnosis of chest pain. The aim of our study was to synthesize pain drawings from a large sample of chest pain patients and to examine whether pain localizations differ for different underlying etiologies. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study including 1212 consecutive patients with chest pain recruited in 74 primary care offices in Germany. Primary care providers (PCPs) marked pain localization and radiation of each patient on a pictogram. After 6 months, an independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient, deciding on the etiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment. PCP drawings were entered in a specially designed computer program to produce merged pain charts for different etiologies. Dissimilarities between individual pain localizations and differences on the level of diagnostic groups were analyzed using the Hausdorff distance and the C-index. RESULTS: Pain location in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) did not differ from the combined group of all other patients, including patients with chest wall syndrome (CWS), gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) or psychogenic chest pain. There was also no difference in chest pain location between male and female CHD patients. CONCLUSIONS: Pain localization is not helpful in discriminating CHD from other common chest pain etiologies

Contemporary diagnosis and management of patients with Myocardial Infarction in the Absence of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association

Myocardial infarction in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease is found in ≈5% to 6% of all patients with acute infarction who are referred for coronary angiography. There are a variety of causes that can result in this clinical condition. As such, it is important that patients are appropriately diagnosed and an evaluation to uncover the correct cause is performed so that, when possible, specific therapies to treat the underlying cause can be prescribed. This statement provides a formal and updated definition for the broadly labelled term MINOCA (incorporating the definition of acute myocardial infarction from the newly released "Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction") and provides a clinically useful framework and algorithms for the diagnostic evaluation and management of patients with myocardial infarction in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease.Jacqueline E. Tamis-Holland, Hani Jneid, Harmony R. Reynolds, Stefan Agewall, Emmanouil S. Brilakis, Todd M. Brown, Amir Lerman, Mary Cushman, Dharam J. Kumbhani, Cynthia Arslanian-Engoren, Ann F. Bolger, John F. Beltrame, and On behalf of the American Heart Association Interventional Cardiovascular Care Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; and Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Researc