Recurrent acute coronary syndrome in a patient with right coronary artery ectasia: a case report

Anticoagulant and antiplatelet treatment effects on the incidence of major cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery ectasia: An updated systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Coronary artery ectasia (CAE), widenings in sections of the arteries, is a rare condition found in up to 3-5% of angiography cases. Sometimes recurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) has been reported in the CAE subjects. The present systematic review aims to collect and summarize reports on whether the use of anticoagulants in addition to single antiplatelet/dual antiplatelet therapy (SAPT/DAPT) in CAE patients with significant occlusion/heavy thrombus is efficient and safe in decreasing the incidence/recurrence of MACE.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematically comprehensive search was performed covering PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were found including 20 case reports, four case series, and one randomized clinical trial. Of 20 case reports 15 were male (75 %), and five were female (25 %). Of the four the case series, all showed positive outcomes after DAPT plus anticoagulant in more than 50 % of patients; two took only DAPT and 13 took anticoagulant ± DAPT, and five compared both. Cases received DAPT only experienced recurrences of MACE. The other cases were uneventful with less MACE and better outcomes after the use of anticoagulant ± DAPT. Results of these case-series included 457 CAE patients showed that more than 80 % of subjects were male, and in all studies tailored pharmacological interventions, including antiplatelet and anticoagulant (warfarin) therapies, resulted in less MACE and mortality.

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that antiplatelet (SAPT/DAPT) must be applied in combination with anticoagulants to provide more efficient protection against MACE in CAE patients. However, further high-quality randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the results.

Five-years' prognostic analysis for coronary artery ectasia patients with coronary atherosclerosis: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Most of coronary artery ectasia (CAE) patients have comorbid coronary atherosclerosis. It was lack of prognostic data for CAE patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and for whom with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Objective

To determine the overall prognosis for CAE patients.

Materials and methods

This study was a retrospective cohort study. Fifty-one patients with CAE and comorbid AMI (CAE + AMI) and 108 patients with CAE and comorbid CHD (CAE + CHD) were enrolled and matched to non-CAE subjects at a ratio of 1:3 using a propensity score method, respectively. Controls for CAE + AMI group were 153 AMI patients, controls for CAE group were 324 CHD patients and 329 participants with relatively normal coronary arteries (CON). We followed them up to observe major cardiovascular events (MACE).

Results

The Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the prognosis in CAE + AMI group was worse than in AMI group (5-year non-MACE rate: 62.70% vs. 79.70%, P = 0.010), the prognosis in CAE group was worse than in CHD and CON groups (5-year non-MACE rate: 74.10% vs. 85.80% and 96.70%, respectively, P = 0.000). The main MACEs in CAE + AMI and CAE groups were AMI reoccurrence (19.61% vs. 4.57%, P = 0.002) and re-hospitalization due to repeated angina pectoris (14.81% vs. 8.33% and 2.74%, P = 0.000), respectively. Additionally, the COX regression analysis revealed that the protective factors for preventing MACE in CAE + AMI group included antiplatelet agents (hazard ratio = 0.234, P = 0.016) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor inhibitor (ACEI/ARB, hazard ratio = 0.317, P = 0.037). Whereas the main factor promoting MACE in CAE group was the degree of coronary stenosis (Gensini score, hazard ratio = 1.011, P = 0.022).

Conclusion

The prognosis of patients with CAE + AMI was worse than that of those with AMI. The overall prognosis of patients with CAE was worse than that of those with CHD. CAE + AMI and CAE groups had different characteristics; the former was prone to AMI reoccurrence, and the latter was prone to repeated angina pectoris. To prevent MACE, medications, including antiplatelets and ACEI/ARBs, are indicated for patients with CAE + AMI, whereas prevention of the progression of atherosclerotic lesions is indicated for patients with CAE.

Recurrent ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) in Coronary Artery Aneurysm Secondary to Atherosclerosis

We describe a rare case of coronary artery aneurysm (CAA) with recurrent ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) despite being on standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). A 47-year-old male presented with chest pain and was found to have inferior wall STEMI along with diffuse right coronary artery (RCA) ectasia and proximal RCA aneurysm, thrombotic occlusion, and dissection. He was managed with extensive thrombectomy, angioplasty, prolonged Heparinization, and DAPT. The patient went on to have a similar presentation nine months later with a recurrent inferior wall STEMI with proximal RCA aneurysm and thrombotic occlusion managed with thrombectomy and bare metal stent placement. He was placed on long-term anticoagulation and DAPT with no further recurrence of MI reported on follow-up.

Plasma Big Endothelin-1 Level Predicted 5-Year Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Coronary Artery Ectasia

Background: Coronary artery ectasia (CAE) is found in about 1% of coronary angiography and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. The prognostic value of plasma big Endothelin-1 (ET-1) in CAE remains unknown. Methods: Patients with angiographically confirmed CAE from 2009 to 2015, who had big ET-1 data available were included. The primary outcome was 5-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a component of cardiovascular death and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI). Patients were divided into high or low big ET-1 groups using a cut-off value of 0.58 pmol/L, according to the receiver operating characteristic curve. Kaplan-Meier method, propensity score method, and Cox regression were used to assess the clinical outcomes in the 2 groups. Results: A total of 992 patients were included, with 260 in the high big ET-1 group and 732 in the low big ET-1 group. At 5-year follow-up, 57 MACEs were observed. Kaplan-Meier analysis and univariable Cox regression showed that patients with high big ET-1 levels were at increased risk of MACE (9.87 vs. 4.50%; HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.32-3.78, P = 0.003), cardiovascular death (4.01 vs. 1.69%; HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.02-5.48, P = 0.044), and non-fatal MI (6.09 vs. 2.84%; HR 2.17, 95% CI 1.11-4.24, P = 0.023). A higher risk of MACE in the high big ET-1 group was consistent in the propensity score matched cohort and propensity score weighted analysis. In multivariable analysis, a high plasma big ET-1 level was still an independent predictor of MACE (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.02-3.25, P = 0.043). A combination of high plasma big ET-1 concentrate and diffuse dilation, when used to predict 5-year MACE risk, yielded a C-statistic of 0.67 (95% CI 0.59-0.74). Conclusion: Among patients with CAE, high plasma big ET-1 level was associated with increased risk of MACE, a finding that could improve risk stratification.

Is Anticoagulant Necessary in Patients with Coronary Artery Ectasia Presenting with Acute Coronary Syndrome? A Systematic Review of Case Reports

Coronary artery ectasia is found in 3 to 8% of patient's undergoing angiography and may sometimes induce acute myocardial infarction. Some articles reported a recurrence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the presence of coronary artery ectasia (CAE). Our study aims to summarize the latest evidence on whether the use of anticoagulant in addition to SAPT/DAPT (single antiplatelet/dual antiplatelet) treating ACS with CAE patients is necessary. Since the trials concerning our objectives were scarce, we pooled case reports/series. We performed a comprehensive search on case reports/series on coronary artery ectasia that presented with acute coronary syndrome published until March 2019. We collected 13 cases from 11 reports. Out of 13 patients, 5 (38.5%) took DAPT only without anticoagulant and 8 (61.5%) took anticoagulant ± DAPT. Three out of five (60%) who took DAPT only, experienced recurrences at 1st and 2nd months' follow-up. The other two (40%) was uneventful at a mean of two months' follow-up. Eight patients who took anticoagulant were uneventful for a mean of 8.4 months. Those who took anticoagulant were at lower risk of experiencing ACS recurrence ( p  = 0.035). Two of the patients who experienced recurrence became 6 and 12 months free after optimal anticoagulation. The author of this study proposed that anticoagulant must be considered should SAPT/DAPT failed to provide adequate protection to the recurrence of ACS, especially in CAE patients who did not have other obvious stenotic lesions. However, the evidence is weak since this study only pooled case reports/series.