OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine the prevalence of unrecognized myocardial infarction (UMI), as well as risk factors, and to compare prognosis after detection of previously UMI to that after recognized myocardial infarction (RMI). BACKGROUND: Past studies revealed that a significant proportion of MIs escape recognition, and that prognosis after such events is poor, but the epidemiology of UMI has not been reassessed in the contemporary era. METHODS: The Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) database, composed of individuals > or =65, was queried for participants who, at entry, demonstrated electrocardiographic evidence of a prior Q-wave MI, but who lacked a history of this diagnosis. The features and outcomes of this group were compared to those of individuals with prevalent RMI. RESULTS: Of 5,888 participants, 901 evidenced a past MI, and 201 (22.3%) were previously unrecognized. The independent predictors of UMI were the absence of angina and the absence of congestive heart failure (CHF). Six-year mortality did not significantly differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: 1) In the elderly, UMI continues to represent a significant proportion of all MIs; 2) associations with angina and CHF may reflect complex neurological issues, but they also may represent diagnosis bias; 3) these individuals can otherwise not be distinguished from those with recognized infarctions; and 4) mortality rates after UMI and RMI are similar. Future studies should address screening for UMI, risk stratification after detection of previously UMI, and the role of standard post-MI therapies.
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine the prevalence of unrecognized myocardial infarction (UMI), as well as risk factors, and to compare prognosis after detection of previously UMI to that after recognized myocardial infarction (RMI). BACKGROUND: Past studies revealed that a significant proportion of MIs escape recognition, and that prognosis after such events is poor, but the epidemiology of UMI has not been reassessed in the contemporary era. METHODS: The Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) database, composed of individuals > or =65, was queried for participants who, at entry, demonstrated electrocardiographic evidence of a prior Q-wave MI, but who lacked a history of this diagnosis. The features and outcomes of this group were compared to those of individuals with prevalent RMI. RESULTS: Of 5,888 participants, 901 evidenced a past MI, and 201 (22.3%) were previously unrecognized. The independent predictors of UMI were the absence of angina and the absence of congestive heart failure (CHF). Six-year mortality did not significantly differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: 1) In the elderly, UMI continues to represent a significant proportion of all MIs; 2) associations with angina and CHF may reflect complex neurological issues, but they also may represent diagnosis bias; 3) these individuals can otherwise not be distinguished from those with recognized infarctions; and 4) mortality rates after UMI and RMI are similar. Future studies should address screening for UMI, risk stratification after detection of previously UMI, and the role of standard post-MI therapies.
Authors: Dana V Rizk; Orlando Gutierrez; Emily B Levitan; William M McClellan; Monika Safford; Elsayed Z Soliman; David G Warnock; Paul Muntner Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Khawaja Afzal Ammar; Ravindrakumar Makwana; Steven J Jacobsen; Jan A Kors; John C Burnett; Margaret M Redfield; Barbara P Yawn; Richard J Rodeheffer Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: David S Fieno; Louise E J Thomson; Piotr Slomka; Aiden Abidov; John D Friedman; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Anne Ruth Bass; Tomás Rodriguez; Gina Hyun; Francisco Gerardo Santiago; Jacqueline Ilji Kim; Scott Christopher Woller; Brian Foster Gage Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Waqas T Qureshi; Zhu-Ming Zhang; Patricia P Chang; Wayne D Rosamond; Dalane W Kitzman; Lynne E Wagenknecht; Elsayed Z Soliman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-01-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Arthur E Stillman; Matthijs Oudkerk; David A Bluemke; Menko Jan de Boer; Jens Bremerich; Ernest V Garcia; Matthias Gutberlet; Pim van der Harst; W Gregory Hundley; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Dirkjan Kuijpers; Raymond Y Kwong; Eike Nagel; Stamatios Lerakis; John Oshinski; Jean-François Paul; Riemer H J A Slart; Vinod Thourani; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Bernd J Wintersperger Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Han W Kim; Igor Klem; Dipan J Shah; Edwin Wu; Sheridan N Meyers; Michele A Parker; Anna Lisa Crowley; Robert O Bonow; Robert M Judd; Raymond J Kim Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-04-21 Impact factor: 11.069