AIMS: The universal definition of myocardial infarction (MI) classifies acute ischaemia into different classes according to lesion mechanism. Our aim was to perform a detailed comparison between these different types of MI in terms of baseline characteristics, management and prognosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: An observational retrospective single-centre cohort study was performed, including 1,000 consecutive patients admitted for type 1 (76.4%) or type 2 MI (23.6%). Type 2 MI patients were older, had a higher prevalence of comorbidities and worse medical status at admission. In-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between the MI groups (8.8 vs. 9.7%, p = 0.602). However, mortality during follow-up was almost 3 times higher in type 2 MIs (HR 2.75, p < 0.001). Type 2 MI was an independent all-cause mortality risk marker, adding discriminatory power to the GRACE model. Finally, important differences in traditional risk score performances (GRACE, CRUSADE) were found between both MI types. CONCLUSIONS: Several important baseline differences were found between these MI types. Regarding prognosis, long-term survival is significantly compromised in type 2 MIs, potentially translating patients' higher medical complexity and frailty. Distinction between type 1 and type 2 MI seems to have important implications in clinical practice and likely also in the results of clinical trials.
AIMS: The universal definition of myocardial infarction (MI) classifies acute ischaemia into different classes according to lesion mechanism. Our aim was to perform a detailed comparison between these different types of MI in terms of baseline characteristics, management and prognosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: An observational retrospective single-centre cohort study was performed, including 1,000 consecutive patients admitted for type 1 (76.4%) or type 2 MI (23.6%). Type 2 MI patients were older, had a higher prevalence of comorbidities and worse medical status at admission. In-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between the MI groups (8.8 vs. 9.7%, p = 0.602). However, mortality during follow-up was almost 3 times higher in type 2 MIs (HR 2.75, p < 0.001). Type 2 MI was an independent all-cause mortality risk marker, adding discriminatory power to the GRACE model. Finally, important differences in traditional risk score performances (GRACE, CRUSADE) were found between both MI types. CONCLUSIONS: Several important baseline differences were found between these MI types. Regarding prognosis, long-term survival is significantly compromised in type 2 MIs, potentially translating patients' higher medical complexity and frailty. Distinction between type 1 and type 2 MI seems to have important implications in clinical practice and likely also in the results of clinical trials.
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
Authors: Karim Lekadir; Alfiia Galimzianova; Angels Betriu; Maria Del Mar Vila; Laura Igual; Daniel L Rubin; Elvira Fernandez; Petia Radeva; Sandy Napel Journal: IEEE J Biomed Health Inform Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 5.772
Authors: Robin M Nance; Heidi M Crane; Corey Ritchings; Lisa Rosenblatt; Matthew Budoff; Susan R Heckbert; Daniel R Drozd; William C Mathews; Elvin Geng; Peter W Hunt; Matthew J Feinstein; Richard D Moore; Priscilla Hsue; Joseph J Eron; Greer A Burkholder; Benigno Rodriguez; Michael J Mugavero; Michael S Saag; Mari M Kitahata; Joseph A C Delaney Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Heidi M Crane; Pathmaja Paramsothy; Daniel R Drozd; Robin M Nance; J A Chris Delaney; Susan R Heckbert; Matthew J Budoff; Greer A Burkholder; James H Willig; Michael J Mugavero; William C Mathews; Paul K Crane; Richard D Moore; Joseph J Eron; Sonia Napravnik; Peter W Hunt; Elvin Geng; Priscilla Hsue; Carla Rodriguez; Inga Peter; Greg S Barnes; Justin McReynolds; William B Lober; Kristina Crothers; Matthew J Feinstein; Carl Grunfeld; Michael S Saag; Mari M Kitahata Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Jessica Williams-Nguyen; Stephen E Hawes; Robin M Nance; Sara Lindström; Susan R Heckbert; H Nina Kim; W Chris Mathews; Edward R Cachay; Matt Budoff; Christopher B Hurt; Peter W Hunt; Elvin Geng; Richard D Moore; Michael J Mugavero; Inga Peter; Mari M Kitahata; Michael S Saag; Heidi M Crane; Joseph A Delaney Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Heidi M Crane; Robin M Nance; Bridget M Whitney; Susan R Heckbert; Matthew Budoff; Kevin High; Alan Landay; Matthew Feinstein; Richard D Moore; William Christopher Mathews; Katerina Christopoulos; Michael S Saag; Amanda Willig; Joseph J Eron; Mari M Kitahata; Joseph A C Delaney Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Per Hammar; Anna M Nordenskjöld; Bertil Lindahl; Olov Duvernoy; Håkan Ahlström; Lars Johansson; Nermin Hadziosmanovic; Tomas Bjerner Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 5.364