Systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence of recurrence of spontaneous coronary artery dissection

Naim Mridha, James Millhouse, Kieran Oldfield, Cobi Adams, Ian Hughes, Kuljit Singh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)


AIM: Recurrence is a well-established complication of spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD). However, the exact incidence and correlates of recurrence are unknown. We, therefore, performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine and consolidate the evidence on the global incidence of SCAD recurrence. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the four major databases (EMBASE, OVID Medline, PubMed and Google Scholar) was performed from their inception to 17 January 2019. We included original research studies, recruiting ≥10 participants, with ≥12 months follow-up that reported data on recurrence in patients with SCAD. RESULTS: Out of 556 studies searched, 19 cohorts (1538 SCAD patients) were included in the analysis. There were 153 cases of de novo recurrence over a mean follow-up period of 31.2 months (95% confidence interval, 25-41 months). Type 1, 2 and 3 SCAD was noted in 33.2, 73.2 and 5.3%, respectively. The involved coronary artery was LMCA, LAD, RCA, LCx and multi-vessel CAD respectively in 3.5%, 53.4%, 19.8%, 20.4% and 12.6% of cases. The overall SCAD de novo recurrence was 7% (ES 0.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.10, I2 = 65.3%). On meta-regression, we found discharge medications at index admission, including β-blockers, ACE inhibitors, statins, as well as baseline cardiac risk factors, did not correlate with recurrence. CONCLUSION: SCAD recurrence is common, occurring in 7% of patients over medium-term follow up. No specific medications at discharge were found to reduce recurrence. Further long-term and prospective data are required.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)650-657
Number of pages8
JournalCoronary Artery Disease
Issue number7
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2021


Dive into the research topics of 'Systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence of recurrence of spontaneous coronary artery dissection'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this