Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Management of the Comatose Adult Patient With an Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a leading cause of death, accounting for ≈50% of all cardiovascular deaths. The prognosis of such individuals is poor, with <10% surviving to hospital discharge. Survival with a favorable neurologic outcome is highest among individuals who present with a witnessed shockable rhythm, received bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, achieve return of spontaneous circulation within 15 minutes of arrest, and have evidence of ST-segment elevation on initial ECG after return of spontaneous circulation. The cardiac catheterization laboratory plays an important role in the coordinated Chain of Survival for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The catheterization laboratory can be used to provide diagnostic, therapeutic, and resuscitative support after sudden cardiac arrest from many different cardiac causes, but it has a unique importance in the treatment of cardiac arrest resulting from underlying coronary artery disease. Over the past few years, numerous trials have clarified the role of the cardiac catheterization laboratory in the management of resuscitated patients or those with ongoing cardiac arrest. This scientific statement provides an update on the contemporary approach to managing resuscitated patients or those with ongoing cardiac arrest.

Race-Based Differences in ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Process Metrics and Mortality From 2015 Through 2021: An Analysis of 178 062 Patients From the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease Registry.

BACKGROUND: Systems of care have been developed across the United States to standardize care processes and improve outcomes in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The effect of contemporary STEMI systems of care on racial and ethnic disparities in achievement of time-to-treatment goals and mortality in STEMI is uncertain. METHODS: We analyzed 178 062 patients with STEMI (52 293 women and 125 769 men) enrolled in the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease registry between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2021. Patients were stratified into and outcomes compared among 3 racial and ethnic groups: non-Hispanic White, Hispanic White, and Black. The primary outcomes were the proportions of patients achieving the following STEMI process metrics: prehospital ECG obtained by emergency medical services; hospital arrival to ECG obtained within 10 minutes for patients not transported by emergency medical services; arrival-to-percutaneous coronary intervention time within 90 minutes; and first medical contact-to-device time within 90 minutes. A secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Analyses were performed separately in women and men, and all outcomes were adjusted for age, comorbidities, acuity of presentation, insurance status, and socioeconomic status measured by social vulnerability index based on patients' county of residence. RESULTS: Compared with non-Hispanic White patients with STEMI, Hispanic White patients and Black patients had lower odds of receiving a prehospital ECG and achieving targets for door-to-ECG, door-to-device, and first medical contact-to-device times. These racial disparities in treatment goals were observed in both women and men, and persisted in most cases after multivariable adjustment. Compared with non-Hispanic White women, Hispanic White women had higher adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.12-1.72]), whereas Black women did not (odds ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.74-1.03]). Compared with non-Hispanic White men, adjusted in-hospital mortality was similar in Hispanic White men (odds ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.82-1.18]) and Black men (odds ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.85-1.09]). CONCLUSIONS: Race- or ethnicity-based disparities persist in STEMI process metrics in both women and men, and mortality differences are observed in Hispanic White compared with non-Hispanic White women. Further research is essential to evolve systems of care to mitigate racial differences in STEMI outcomes.

Pharmacotherapy for Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Aging Population.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide a comprehensive summary of relevant studies and evidence concerning the utilization of different pharmacotherapeutic and revascularization strategies in managing coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome specifically in the older adult population. RECENT FINDINGS: Approximately 30% to 40% of hospitalized patients with acute coronary syndrome are older adults, among whom the majority of cardiovascular-related deaths occur. When compared to younger patients, these individuals generally experience inferior clinical outcomes. Most clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of various therapeutics have primarily enrolled patients under the age of 75, in addition to excluding those with geriatric complexities. In this review, we emphasize the need for a personalized and comprehensive approach to pharmacotherapy for coronary heart disease and acute coronary syndrome in older adults, considering concomitant geriatric syndromes and age-related factors to optimize treatment outcomes while minimizing potential risks and complications. In the realm of clinical practice, cardiovascular and geriatric risks are closely intertwined, with both being significant factors in determining treatments aimed at reducing negative outcomes and attaining health conditions most valued by older adults.

Sex differences in the presentation and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a critical review of contemporary data and a look towards future directions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a devasting complicating of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), associated with significant mortality. Prior studies have reported sex differences in the presentation, management and outcomes of patients with AMI and CS. These differences are likely due to a variety of factors influencing therapeutic decision-making and impacting survival. This review highlights the more contemporary studies exploring differences in women and men with AMI-CS, providing a critical perspective towards understanding the factors that might lead to these differences and outlining potential opportunities to reduce disparities in treatment and improve survival for women with AMI-CS. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent reports demonstrate that women with AMI-CS are older than men and have more cardiovascular comorbidities. When examining an unselected population of patients with AMI-CS, women receive less aggressive treatment compared to men and have poorer outcomes. However, when examining a selected population of patients with AMI-CS treated with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and/or admitted to centers that implement CS protocols to manage AMI-CS, these sex-based differences in outcomes are largely mitigated. SUMMARY: Standardizing protocols for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with AMI-CS, with an emphasis on early revascularization and appropriate invasive therapies, can improve outcomes in women and narrow the gender gap.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

Impact of COVID-19 on percutaneous coronary intervention utilization and mortality in New York.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has disrupted the care of all patients, and little is known about its impact on the utilization and short-term mortality of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients, particularly nonemergency patients. METHODS: New York State's PCI registry was used to study the utilization of PCI and the presence of COVID-19 in four patient subgroups ranging in severity from ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) to elective patients before (December 01, 2018-February 29, 2020) and during the COVID-19 era (March 01, 2020-May 31, 2021), as well as to examine the impact of different COVID severity levels on the mortality of different types of PCI patients. RESULTS: Decreases in the mean quarterly PCI volume from the prepandemic period to the first quarter of the pandemic ranged from 20% for STEMI patients to 61% for elective patients, with the other two subgroups having decreases in between these values. PCI quarterly volume rebounds from the prepandemic period to the second quarter of 2021 were in excess of 90% for all patient subgroups, and 99.7% for elective patients. Existing COVID-19 was rare among PCI patients, ranging from 1.74% for STEMI patients to 3.66% for elective patients. PCI patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were not intubated, and PCI patients with COVID-19 and ARDS who were either intubated or were not intubated because of Do Not Resuscitate//Do Not Intubate status had higher risk-adjusted mortality ([adjusted ORs = 10.81 [4.39, 26.63] and 24.53 [12.06, 49.88], respectively]) than patients who never had COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: There were large decreases in the utilization of PCI during COVID-19, with the percentage of decrease being highly sensitive to patient acuity. By the second quarter of 2021, prepandemic volumes were nearly restored for all patient subgroups. Very few PCI patients had current COVID-19 throughout the pandemic period, but the number of PCI patients with a COVID-19 history increased steadily during the pandemic. PCI patients with COVID-19 accompanied by ARDS were at much higher risk of short-term mortality than patients who never had COVID-19. COVID-19 without ARDS and history of COVID-19 were not associated with higher mortality for PCI patients as of the second quarter of 2021.

Evidence-Based Practices in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardiac catheterization procedures have rapidly evolved and expanded in scope and techniques over the past few decades. However, although some practices have emerged based on evidence, many traditions have persisted based on beliefs and theoretical concerns. The aim of this review is to highlight common preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure catheterization laboratory practices where evidence has accumulated over the past few decades to support or discount traditionally held practices.

Mechanical Complications of Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Over the past few decades, advances in pharmacological, catheter-based, and surgical reperfusion have improved outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarctions. However, patients with large infarcts or those who do not receive timely revascularization remain at risk for mechanical complications of acute myocardial infarction. The most commonly encountered mechanical complications are acute mitral regurgitation secondary to papillary muscle rupture, ventricular septal defect, pseudoaneurysm, and free wall rupture; each complication is associated with a significant risk of morbidity, mortality, and hospital resource utilization. The care for patients with mechanical complications is complex and requires a multidisciplinary collaboration for prompt recognition, diagnosis, hemodynamic stabilization, and decision support to assist patients and families in the selection of definitive therapies or palliation. However, because of the relatively small number of high-quality studies that exist to guide clinical practice, there is significant variability in care that mainly depends on local expertise and available resources.

Invasive Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the most common cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The SHOCK trial (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock) demonstrated a survival benefit with early revascularization in patients with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMICS) 20 years ago. After an initial improvement in mortality related to revascularization, mortality rates have plateaued. A recent Society of Coronary Angiography and Interventions classification scheme was developed to address the wide range of CS presentations. In addition, a recent scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommended the development of CS centers using standardized protocols for diagnosis and management of CS, including mechanical circulatory support devices (MCS). A number of CS programs have implemented various protocols for treating patients with AMICS, including the use of MCS, and have published promising results using such protocols. Despite this, practice patterns in the cardiac catheterization laboratory vary across health systems, and there are inconsistencies in the use or timing of MCS for AMICS. Furthermore, mortality benefit from MCS devices in AMICS has yet to be established in randomized clinical trials. In this article, we outline the best practices for the contemporary interventional management of AMICS, including coronary revascularization, the use of MCS, and special considerations such as the treatment of patients with AMICS with cardiac arrest.

Recent Advances in Stent Technology: Do They Reduce Cardiovascular Events?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Drug-eluting stents are used in nearly all cases of percutaneous coronary revascularization and have been shown to be superior to balloon angioplasty or bare metal stents. The designs of these stents are continually evolving to maximize efficacy and safety. RECENT FINDINGS: This review outlines the important components of a drug-eluting stent and highlights the changes in stent design that have led to the optimization of clinical outcomes. Most stents used in contemporary times are thin strut, durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DES) that elute either everolimus or zotarolimus. Newer DES designs incorporating bioresorbable polymers or ultrathin struts have shown encouraging safety and efficacy profiles. DES are essential for the management of patients with obstructive coronary artery disease and are used in most coronary interventions. Changes in stent designs over the past 30 years reflect the ongoing need to address the limitations of earlier stents aimed to improve patient outcomes.

Treatment Time and In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction, 2018-2021.

Importance: Recognizing the association between timely treatment and less myocardial injury for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), US national guidelines recommend specific treatment-time goals. Objective: To describe these process measures and outcomes for a recent cohort of patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of a diagnosis-based registry between the second quarter of 2018 and the third quarter of 2021 for 114 871 patients with STEMI treated at 648 hospitals in the Get With The Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease registry. Exposures: STEMI or STEMI equivalent. Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment times, in-hospital mortality, and adherence to system goals (75% treated ≤90 minutes of first medical contact if the first hospital is percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]-capable and ≤120 minutes if patients require transfer to a PCI-capable hospital). Results: In the study population, median age was 63 (IQR, 54-72) years, 71% were men, and 29% were women. Median time from symptom onset to PCI was 148 minutes (IQR, 111-226) for patients presenting to PCI-capable hospitals by emergency medical service, 195 minutes (IQR, 127-349) for patients walking in, and 240 minutes (IQR, 166-402) for patients transferred from another hospital. Adjusted in-hospital mortality was lower for those treated within target times vs beyond time goals for patients transported via emergency medical services (first medical contact to laboratory activation ≤20 minutes [in-hospital mortality, 3.6 vs 9.2] adjusted OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.48-0.60], and first medical contact to device ≤90 minutes [in-hospital mortality, 3.3 vs 12.1] adjusted OR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.36-0.44]), walk-in patients (hospital arrival to device ≤90 minutes [in-hospital mortality, 1.8 vs 4.7] adjusted OR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.40-0.55]), and transferred patients (door-in to door-out time <30 minutes [in-hospital mortality, 2.9 vs 6.4] adjusted OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.32-0.78], and first hospital arrival to device ≤120 minutes [in-hospital mortality, 4.3 vs 14.2] adjusted OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26-0.71]). Regardless of mode of presentation, system goals were not met in most quarters, with the most delayed system performance among patients requiring interhospital transfer (17% treated ≤120 minutes). Conclusions and Relevance: This study of patients with STEMI included in a US national registry provides information on changes in process and outcomes between 2018 and 2021.

Myocardial Infarction in the Absence of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease (MINOCA): a Review of the Present and Preview of the Future.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The syndrome of myocardial infarction in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA) is not uncommon and has multiple potential coronary etiologies. With the use of more sensitive cardiac biomarkers and advanced cardiovascular imaging, MINOCA presentations have gain increasing attention among researchers and cardiologists. Despite the presence of a myocardial infarction and elevated future risk, many patients are sent home with little or no cardio-protective treatment and no explanation for their symptoms. In this review, we emphasized the importance of MINOCA treatment based on the underlying etiology. RECENT FINDINGS: As there are multiple pathophysiological mechanisms potentially involved in MINOCA, it should be considered a working diagnosis until there is a better understanding regarding the underlying cause. It is critical to use multimodality imaging when treating patients with MINOCA to help determine the underlying etiology and rule out mimics of MINOCA, so that therapies appropriate to the etiology can be provided. A more systematic approach to managing patients with MINOCA should result in better treatment and an improved prognosis for these patients.

The appropriate use criteria: Improvements for its integration into real world clinical practice.

The purpose of this position statement is to suggest ways in which future appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization might be restructured to: (1) incorporate improvement in quality of life and angina relief as primary goals of therapy, (2) integrate the findings of recent trials into quality appraisal, (3) employ the combined information of the coronary angiogram and invasive physiologic measurements together with the results of stress test imaging to assess risk, and (4) recognize the essential role that patient preference plays in making individualized therapeutic decisions. The AUC is a valuable tool within the quality assurance process; it is vital that interventionists ensure that percutaneous coronary intervention case selection is both evidence-based and patient oriented. Appropriate patient selection is an important quality indicator and adherence to evidence-based practice should be one metric in a portfolio of process and outcome indicators that measure quality.

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.

Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery for left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

We aimed to investigate long-term (≥5 years) outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) using a meta-analysis from updated published randomized trials. Our data showed that the risk of all-cause death as well as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke was similar between PCI and CABG, whereas PCI had significantly higher rates of repeat revascularization compared to CABG. Decisions for PCI versus CABG for LMCAD should be based on weighing the upfront morbidity and mortality risk of CABG with late risk of repeat revascularization with PCI and taking into consideration patient preference.

Safety of transradial access compared to transfemoral access with hemostatic devices (vessel plugs and suture devices) after percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Comparing the safety of transradial access (TRA) and conventional hemostasis with transfemoral access (TFA) and vascular closure devices (vessel plugs and suture devices) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. BACKGROUND: TRA for PCIs is associated with fewer bleeding and vascular complications compared with TFA. Vascular closure devices (VCD) are often used post TFA to establish early hemostasis and mitigate bleeding risk. However, the comparative efficacy of TRA and TFA with VCDs remains controversial. METHOD: Electronic database were systematically searched for all pertinent studies from inception through January 2020. Randomized studies, registry data, and abstracts published in peer-reviewed indexed journals were included. The short-term outcomes: major bleeding, vascular complications, and closure device failure were evaluated. Random-effects model was used to pool individual study results. RESULTS: Twelve studies (8 observational, 4 randomized) including 7,961 patients (TRA: 3,121 patients, TFA and vessel plugs: 3,157 patients, TFA & suture devices: 1,683 patients) were included in the analysis. Major bleeding was significantly lower with TRA compared with TFA and vessel plugs (odds ratio [OR] 0.22, 95%CI 0.11-0.44, p < .00001) and TFA & suture devices (OR 0.12, 95%CI 0.05-0.28, p < .00001). Vascular complications were significantly lower with TRA compared to TFA and vessel plugs (OR 0.25, 95%CI 0.13-0.49, p < .0001) and TFA & suture devices (OR 0.13, 95%CI 0.04-0.41, p = 0.0005). Rates of closure device failure were lower for TRA compared to TFA & suture devices (OR 0.13, 95%CI 0.04-0.41, p = .0005), but similar to TFA & vessel plugs (OR 0.23, 95%CI 0.01-4.28, p = .33), although confidence intervals were wide. All analysis revealed a low to moderate level of heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: TRA with conventional hemostasis is safer than TFA with hemostasis via vessel plugs or suture devices and should be considered best practice.

Sex differences in the treatment and outcomes of patients hospitalized with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES: To compare mortality for women and men hospitalized with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) by age and revascularization status. BACKGROUND: There is little information on the mortality of men and women not undergoing revascularization, and the impact of age on relative male-female mortality needs to be revisited. METHODS AND RESULTS: An observational database of 23,809 patients with STEMI presenting at nonfederal New York State hospitals between 2013 and 2015 was used to compare risk-adjusted inhospital/30-day mortality for women and men and to explore the impact of age on those differences. Women had significantly higher mortality than men overall (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.15, 95% CI [1.04, 1.28]), and among patients aged 65 and older. Women had lower revascularization rates in general (AOR = 0.64 [0.59, 0.69]) and for all age groups. Among revascularized STEMI patients, women overall (AOR = 1.30 [1.10, 1.53]) and over 65 had higher mortality than men. Among patients not revascularized, women between the ages of 45 and 64 had lower mortality (AOR = 0.68 [0.48, 0.97]). CONCLUSIONS: Women with STEMI, and especially older women, had higher inhospital/30-day mortality rates than their male counterparts. Women had higher mortality among revascularized patients, but not among patients who were not revascularized.

Assessment of repeat target lesion percutaneous coronary intervention as a quality measure for public reporting and general quality assessment for PCIs.

BACKGROUND: Target lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (TLPCI) within 1 year of PCI has been proposed by critics of public reporting of short-term mortality as an alternative measure for PCI reporting. METHODS: New York's PCI registry was used to identify 1-year repeat TLPCI and 1-year repeat TLPCI/mortality for patients discharged between December 1, 2013 and November 30, 2014. Significant independent predictors of the outcomes were identified. Hospital and cardiologist risk-adjusted outcomes were calculated, and outlier status and correlations of risk-adjusted rates were examined for the three outcomes. RESULTS: The adverse outcome rates were 1.30, 4.21, and 8.97% for in-hospital/30-day mortality, 1-year repeat TLPCI, and 1-year repeat TLPCI/mortality. There were many commonalities but also many differences in significant predictors of the outcomes. Hospital and cardiologist risk-adjusted 1-year repeat TLPCI rates and repeat TLPCI/mortality rates were poorly correlated with risk-adjusted in-hospital/30-day mortality rates (eg, Spearman R = -.16 [p = .23] and .27 [p = .04], respectively, for hospital 1-year repeat TLPCI vs. in-hospital/30-day mortality). Many more providers were found to have significantly higher and lower rates for repeat TLPCI than for short-term mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital and cardiologist quality assessments are very different for TLPCI and repeat TLPCI/mortality than they are for short-term mortality. Repeat TLPCI/mortality rates are highly correlated with repeat TLPCI rates, but outlier providers differ. More study of repeat TLPCI and all the patient, cardiologist, and hospital factors associated with it may be required before using it as a supplement to, or in lieu of, short-term mortality in public reporting of PCI outcomes.

The Imaging Toolbox to Assess Patients with Suspected Myocardial Infarction in the Absence of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease (MINOCA).

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper will review myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCAs) briefly, and then focus on the imaging tools that should be employed when caring for patients with suspected MINOCA. RECENT FINDINGS: Diagnostic imaging has a critical role in assessing patients with suspected or confirmed MINOCA. The extent at which these diagnostic tests are used in any given patient will depend on the clinical acumen for the underlying condition, as well as the available resources. There are myriad conditions that can lead to MINOCA; further testing to exclude other underlying causes of myocardial injury is crucial. Cardiovascular imaging may assist in identifying the etiological cause in cases where MINOCA remains the most likely diagnosis. A systematic approach to the diagnostic assessment will help to uncover the underlying diagnosis, guide therapy, and provide the patient and their families with appropriate feedback.