Background: The optimal treatment approach for spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) remains unclear.
Objectives: The study aims to compare in-hospital and long-term clinical outcomes of SCAD patients initially managed with medical therapy (conservative approach) versus percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting (revascularization approach) based on published data.
Methods: We identified relevant studies by performing a systematic search in the Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases. Studies with N at least 10 that report in-hospital outcomes [death, myocardial infarction (MI) and revascularization] or long-term outcomes (death, MI, revascularization, SCAD recurrence, and heart failure) were included. Risk difference between conservative and revascularization approach was estimated with the inverse variance-weighted method in a fixed-effect or random-effect model.
Results: A total of 22 nonrandomized, observational studies were analyzed (N = 1435). Compared with the initial revascularization approach, the conservative approach was associated with a comparable risk of in-hospital outcomes [risk difference: death, -0.61% (95% confidence interval, -2.13-0.91%), P = 0.43; MI, -0.99% (-4.65-2.67%), P = 0.60; revascularization, -3.02% (-8.79-2.75%), P = 0.31] and long-term outcomes [death, -0.06% (-2.33-2.20%), P = 0.96; MI, 0.96% (-2.35-4.27%), P = 0.57; revascularization, -3.31% (-7.63-1.02%), P = 0.13; SCAD recurrence, 3.75% (-2.05-9.55%), P = 0.21; heart failure, -0.01% (-3.13-3.11%), P = 0.99]. There was no significant heterogeneity across these studies.
Conclusion: Pooled results suggest that SCAD patients initially managed with a conservative strategy may have similar in-hospital and long-term outcomes compared with those who received revascularization in the absence of ongoing ischemia or left main artery involvement. More data from prospective studies are warranted to validate these findings.