OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare clinical profiles and midterm prognosis of patients with normal coronary arteries presenting with ST-elevation ACS (STE-ACS) versus non-ST-elevation ACS (nSTE-ACS). BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding ACS in patients with normal coronary arteries, and especially clinical differences between ST-ACS and nSTE-ACS patients have not been evaluated sufficiently. METHODS: The study group comprised 190 patients (mean age: 53.2 years, 63.1% males, 63.6% STE-ACS) presenting with ACS and normal coronary angiograms. The participants were evaluated in terms of 42 clinical variables. MACE [cardiac death (CD) and hospitalization for angina (HA)] were the study end points. RESULTS: STE-ACS in comparison to nSTE-ACS patients were younger (P < 0.01), were more frequently males (P < 0.01), had more often infection prior to ACS (P < 0.01), higher hsCRP on admission (P < 0.01), and greater infarct size, measured by maximal troponin I (P < 0.01). By multivariate analysis in this subgroup, predictors of outcome were hsCRP (P = 0.03) and raised troponin I (P = 0.02). nSTE-ACS in comparison to STE-ACS patients were more obese (BMI, P < 0.01), had higher LDL cholesterol (P < 0.01), fasting glucose (P = 0.03). LDL cholesterol (P = 0.02) and fasting glucose (P = 0.03) emerged as independent predictors of outcome in these patients. Mean follow-up period was 25.4 months. STE-ACS patients had twice fewer MACE rate than nSTE-ACS patients [(1-CD, 12-HA; 11%) vs (1-CD, 16-HA; 25%), respectively, log rank P < 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: STE-ACS and nSTE-ACS patients with normal coronary arteriography have different clinical profiles. In nSTE-ACS patients more pronounced metabolic abnormalities were identified, while in STE-ACS patients inflammatory background was more significant.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare clinical profiles and midterm prognosis of patients with normal coronary arteries presenting with ST-elevation ACS (STE-ACS) versus non-ST-elevation ACS (nSTE-ACS). BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding ACS in patients with normal coronary arteries, and especially clinical differences between ST-ACS and nSTE-ACSpatients have not been evaluated sufficiently. METHODS: The study group comprised 190 patients (mean age: 53.2 years, 63.1% males, 63.6% STE-ACS) presenting with ACS and normal coronary angiograms. The participants were evaluated in terms of 42 clinical variables. MACE [cardiac death (CD) and hospitalization for angina (HA)] were the study end points. RESULTS: STE-ACS in comparison to nSTE-ACSpatients were younger (P < 0.01), were more frequently males (P < 0.01), had more often infection prior to ACS (P < 0.01), higher hsCRP on admission (P < 0.01), and greater infarct size, measured by maximal troponin I (P < 0.01). By multivariate analysis in this subgroup, predictors of outcome were hsCRP (P = 0.03) and raised troponin I (P = 0.02). nSTE-ACS in comparison to STE-ACSpatients were more obese (BMI, P < 0.01), had higher LDL cholesterol (P < 0.01), fasting glucose (P = 0.03). LDL cholesterol (P = 0.02) and fasting glucose (P = 0.03) emerged as independent predictors of outcome in these patients. Mean follow-up period was 25.4 months. STE-ACSpatients had twice fewer MACE rate than nSTE-ACSpatients [(1-CD, 12-HA; 11%) vs (1-CD, 16-HA; 25%), respectively, log rank P < 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: STE-ACS and nSTE-ACSpatients with normal coronary arteriography have different clinical profiles. In nSTE-ACSpatients more pronounced metabolic abnormalities were identified, while in STE-ACSpatients inflammatory background was more significant.
Authors: A Germing; M Lindstaedt; S Ulrich; P Grewe; W Bojara; T Lawo; S von Dryander; D Jäger; A Machraoui; A Mügge; B Lemke Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: J A Fournier; A Sánchez-González; J Quero; J A Cortacero; A Cabello; A Revello; R Romero Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 1997-08-08 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: J A McCrohon; J C C Moon; S K Prasad; W J McKenna; C H Lorenz; A J S Coats; D J Pennell Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-06-23 Impact factor: 29.690