Tomasz Baron1, Kristina Hambraeus2, Johan Sundström3, David Erlinge4, Tomas Jernberg5, Bertil Lindahl3. 1. Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Sweden. Electronic address: tomasz.baron@ucr.uu.se. 2. Department of Cardiology, Falun Hospital, Falun, Sweden. 3. Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Sweden. 4. Department of Cardiology, Lund University, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 5. Department of Medicine, Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Department of Cardiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In contrast to the associated-with-thromboembolic-event type 1 myocardial infarction, type 2 myocardial infarction is caused by acute imbalance between oxygen supply and demand of myocardium. Type 2 myocardial infarction may be present in patients with or without obstructive coronary artery disease, but knowledge about patient characteristics, treatments, and outcome in relation to coronary artery status is lacking. We aimed to compare background characteristics, triggering mechanisms, treatment, and long-term prognosis in a large real-life cohort of patients with type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction with and without obstructive coronary artery disease. METHODS: All 41,817 consecutive patients with type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction registered in the Swedish myocardial infarction registry (SWEDEHEART) who underwent coronary angiography between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013, with the last follow-up on December 31, 2014, were studied. RESULTS: In 92.8% of 40,501 patients classified as type 1 and in 52.5% of patients classified as type 2 myocardial infarction, presence of an obstructive coronary artery disease could be shown. Within the patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, those with type 2 myocardial infarction were older, and had more comorbidities and smaller necrosis as compared with type 1 myocardial infarction. In contrast, there was almost no difference in risk profile and extent of myocardial infarction between type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction patients with nonobstructive coronary artery stenosis. The crude long-term mortality was higher in type 2 as compared with type 1 myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease (hazard ratio [HR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-2.03), but was lower after adjustment (HR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.94). In myocardial infarction patients with nonobstructive coronary artery stenosis, the mortality risk was similar regardless of the clinical myocardial infarction type (crude HR 1.14; 95% CI, 0.84-1.55; adjusted HR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52-1.29). CONCLUSIONS: The substantial differences in risk factors, treatment, and outcome in patients with type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease supports the relevance of the division between type 1 and type 2 in this population. On the contrary, in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery stenosis, irrespective of the clinical type, a similar risk profile, extent of necrosis, and long-term prognosis were observed, indicating that distinction between type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction in these patients seems to be inappropriate.
BACKGROUND: In contrast to the associated-with-thromboembolic-event type 1 myocardial infarction, type 2 myocardial infarction is caused by acute imbalance between oxygen supply and demand of myocardium. Type 2 myocardial infarction may be present in patients with or without obstructive coronary artery disease, but knowledge about patient characteristics, treatments, and outcome in relation to coronary artery status is lacking. We aimed to compare background characteristics, triggering mechanisms, treatment, and long-term prognosis in a large real-life cohort of patients with type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction with and without obstructive coronary artery disease. METHODS: All 41,817 consecutive patients with type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction registered in the Swedish myocardial infarction registry (SWEDEHEART) who underwent coronary angiography between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013, with the last follow-up on December 31, 2014, were studied. RESULTS: In 92.8% of 40,501 patients classified as type 1 and in 52.5% of patients classified as type 2 myocardial infarction, presence of an obstructive coronary artery disease could be shown. Within the patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, those with type 2 myocardial infarction were older, and had more comorbidities and smaller necrosis as compared with type 1 myocardial infarction. In contrast, there was almost no difference in risk profile and extent of myocardial infarction between type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarctionpatients with nonobstructive coronary artery stenosis. The crude long-term mortality was higher in type 2 as compared with type 1 myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease (hazard ratio [HR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-2.03), but was lower after adjustment (HR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.94). In myocardial infarctionpatients with nonobstructive coronary artery stenosis, the mortality risk was similar regardless of the clinical myocardial infarction type (crude HR 1.14; 95% CI, 0.84-1.55; adjusted HR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52-1.29). CONCLUSIONS: The substantial differences in risk factors, treatment, and outcome in patients with type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease supports the relevance of the division between type 1 and type 2 in this population. On the contrary, in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery stenosis, irrespective of the clinical type, a similar risk profile, extent of necrosis, and long-term prognosis were observed, indicating that distinction between type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction in these patients seems to be inappropriate.
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: Avinainder Singh; Ankur Gupta; Ersilia M DeFilippis; Arman Qamar; David W Biery; Zaid Almarzooq; Bradley Collins; Amber Fatima; Candace Jackson; Patrycja Galazka; Mattheus Ramsis; Daniel C Pipilas; Sanjay Divakaran; Mary Cawley; Jon Hainer; Josh Klein; Petr Jarolim; Khurram Nasir; James L Januzzi; Marcelo F Di Carli; Deepak L Bhatt; Ron Blankstein Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Grant W Reed; Samuel Horr; Laura Young; Joshua Clevenger; Umair Malik; Stephen G Ellis; A Michael Lincoff; Steven E Nissen; Venu Menon Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Andrew R Chapman; Philip D Adamson; Anoop S V Shah; Atul Anand; Fiona E Strachan; Amy V Ferry; Kuan Ken Lee; Colin Berry; Iain Findlay; Anne Cruikshank; Alan Reid; Alasdair Gray; Paul O Collinson; Fred Apple; David A McAllister; Donogh Maguire; Keith A A Fox; Catalina A Vallejos; Catriona Keerie; Christopher J Weir; David E Newby; Nicholas L Mills Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Oras A Alabas; Chris P Gale; Marlous Hall; Mark J Rutherford; Karolina Szummer; Sofia Sederholm Lawesson; Joakim Alfredsson; Bertil Lindahl; Tomas Jernberg Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Andrew R Chapman; Anoop S V Shah; Kuan Ken Lee; Atul Anand; Oliver Francis; Philip Adamson; David A McAllister; Fiona E Strachan; David E Newby; Nicholas L Mills Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-11-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John Hung; Andreas Roos; Erik Kadesjö; David A McAllister; Dorien M Kimenai; Anoop S V Shah; Atul Anand; Fiona E Strachan; Keith A A Fox; Nicholas L Mills; Andrew R Chapman; Martin J Holzmann Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 35.855