Literature DB >> 21241970

The universal classification is an independent predictor of long-term outcomes in acute myocardial infarction.

Manuel A Gonzalez1, Dana J Eilen, Rana A Marzouq, Christopher P Porterfield, Surovi Hazarika, Summiyah Nasir, Amit A Patel, Karyll De J Gonzalez, Michael B Burris, Mayelin Prieto-Gonzalez, John D Rose, Wayne E Cascio.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The long-term outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) according to the universal classification (UC) are unknown. We investigated whether the outcome of these patients is better predicted by the UC than the ST-segment classification (STC).
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 348 consecutive patients with AMI with mean follow-up of 30.6 months. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [composite of all causes of death and AMI].
RESULTS: The study included ST-segment elevation (STEMI) = 168 (48%), non-ST-segment elevation (NSTEMI) = 180 (52%), Type 1 = 278 (80%), Type 2 = 55 (15.8%), Type 3 = 5 (1.4%), Type 4a = 2 (0.6%), Type 4b = 5 (1.4%), and Type 5 = 3 (0.9%). During follow-up, 102 (29.3%) patients had MACE, 80 (23%) patients died, and 31 (8.9%) had an AMI. The adjusted risk of MACE was similar for NSTEMI and STEMI (HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.77-2.03, P = .35) but was significantly lower for patients with Type 2 AMI as compared to Type 1 (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.90, P= .02). The UC, peak troponin levels, discharge glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2), and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score were independent predictors of MACE (all, P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The UC is an independent predictor of long-term outcomes in AMI patients compared to the STC. Type 2 AMI has less than half the risk of MACE as Type 1 AMI. Future studies should report outcomes of AMI patients according to the UC types.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21241970     DOI: 10.1016/j.carrev.2009.11.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cardiovasc Revasc Med        ISSN: 1878-0938


  5 in total

1.  Variations on classification of main types of myocardial infarction: a systematic review and outcome meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kris G Vargas; Paul M Haller; Bernhard Jäger; Maximilian Tscharre; Ronald K Binder; Christian Mueller; Bertil Lindahl; Kurt Huber
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-12-07       Impact factor: 5.460

2.  Type 2 versus type 1 myocardial infarction: a comparison of clinical characteristics and outcomes with a meta-analysis of observational studies.

Authors:  Sonu Gupta; Satyanarayana R Vaidya; Sameer Arora; Amol Bahekar; Santhosh R Devarapally
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2017-08

Review 3.  Assessment and Treatment of Patients With Type 2 Myocardial Infarction and Acute Nonischemic Myocardial Injury.

Authors:  Andrew P DeFilippis; Andrew R Chapman; Nicholas L Mills; James A de Lemos; Armin Arbab-Zadeh; L Kristin Newby; David A Morrow
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2019-08-16       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Meta-analysis Comparing Outcomes of Type 2 Myocardial Infarction and Type 1 Myocardial Infarction With a Focus on Dual Antiplatelet Therapy.

Authors:  Christopher Reid; Ahmed Alturki; Andrew Yan; Derek So; Dennis Ko; Jean-Francois Tanguay; Amal Bessissow; Shamir Mehta; Shaun Goodman; Thao Huynh
Journal:  CJC Open       Date:  2020-02-24

5.  Efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine injections in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wei Zhao; Jun Li; Hengwen Chen; Qingjuan Wu; Yawen Deng; Yuqing Tan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-08-07       Impact factor: 1.817

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.