Importance: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging can identify unrecognized myocardial infarction (UMI) in the general population. Unrecognized myocardial infarction by CMR portends poor prognosis in the short term but, to our knowledge, long-term outcomes are not known. Objective: To determine the long-term outcomes of UMI by CMR compared with clinically recognized myocardial infarction (RMI) and no myocardial infarction (MI). Design, Setting, and Participants: Participants of the population-based, prospectively enrolled ICELAND MI cohort study (aged 67-93 years) were characterized with CMR at baseline (from January 2004-January 2007) and followed up for up to 13.3 years. Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analyses and a Cox regression were used to assess the association of UMI at baseline with death and future cardiovascular events. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE: death, nonfatal MI, and heart failure). Results: Of 935 participants, 452 (48.3%) were men; the mean (SD) age of participants with no MI, UMI, and RMI was 75.6 (5.3) years, 76.8 (5.2) years, and 76.8 (4.7) years, respectively. At 3 years, UMI and no MI mortality rates were similar (3%) and lower than RMI rates (9%). At 5 years, UMI mortality rates (13%) increased and were higher than no MI rates (8%) but still lower than RMI rates (19%). By 10 years, UMI and RMI mortality rates (49% and 51%, respectively) were not statistically different; both were significantly higher than no MI (30%) (P < .001). After adjusting for age, sex, and diabetes, UMI by CMR had an increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.27-2.04), MACE (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.26-1.93), MI (HR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.45-3.03), and heart failure (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.09-2.14) compared with no MI and statistically nondifferent risk of death (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.71-1.38) and MACE (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.91-1.66) vs RMI. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, all-cause mortality of UMI was higher than no MI, but within 10 years from baseline evaluation was equivalent with RMI. Unrecognized MI was also associated with an elevated risk of nonfatal MI and heart failure. Whether secondary prevention can alter the prognosis of UMI will require prospective testing.
Importance: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging can identify unrecognized myocardial infarction (UMI) in the general population. Unrecognized myocardial infarction by CMR portends poor prognosis in the short term but, to our knowledge, long-term outcomes are not known. Objective: To determine the long-term outcomes of UMI by CMR compared with clinically recognized myocardial infarction (RMI) and no myocardial infarction (MI). Design, Setting, and Participants: Participants of the population-based, prospectively enrolled ICELAND MI cohort study (aged 67-93 years) were characterized with CMR at baseline (from January 2004-January 2007) and followed up for up to 13.3 years. Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analyses and a Cox regression were used to assess the association of UMI at baseline with death and future cardiovascular events. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE: death, nonfatal MI, and heart failure). Results: Of 935 participants, 452 (48.3%) were men; the mean (SD) age of participants with no MI, UMI, and RMI was 75.6 (5.3) years, 76.8 (5.2) years, and 76.8 (4.7) years, respectively. At 3 years, UMI and no MI mortality rates were similar (3%) and lower than RMI rates (9%). At 5 years, UMI mortality rates (13%) increased and were higher than no MI rates (8%) but still lower than RMI rates (19%). By 10 years, UMI and RMI mortality rates (49% and 51%, respectively) were not statistically different; both were significantly higher than no MI (30%) (P < .001). After adjusting for age, sex, and diabetes, UMI by CMR had an increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.27-2.04), MACE (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.26-1.93), MI (HR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.45-3.03), and heart failure (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.09-2.14) compared with no MI and statistically nondifferent risk of death (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.71-1.38) and MACE (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.91-1.66) vs RMI. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, all-cause mortality of UMI was higher than no MI, but within 10 years from baseline evaluation was equivalent with RMI. Unrecognized MI was also associated with an elevated risk of nonfatal MI and heart failure. Whether secondary prevention can alter the prognosis of UMI will require prospective testing.
Authors: Charlotte Ebeling Barbier; Tomas Bjerner; Lars Johansson; Lars Lind; Håkan Ahlström Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-07-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: R J Kim; E Wu; A Rafael; E L Chen; M A Parker; O Simonetti; F J Klocke; R O Bonow; R M Judd Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Abbas Dehghan; Maarten J G Leening; Abbas M Solouki; Eric Boersma; Jaap W Deckers; Gerard van Herpen; Jan Heeringa; Albert Hofman; Jan A Kors; Oscar H Franco; M Arfan Ikram; Jacqueline C M Witteman Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Bouwe P Krijthe; Maarten J G Leening; Jan Heeringa; Jan A Kors; Albert Hofman; Oscar H Franco; Jacqueline C M Witteman; Bruno H Stricker Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Evrim B Turkbey; Marcelo S Nacif; Mengye Guo; Robyn L McClelland; Patricia B R P Teixeira; Diane E Bild; R Graham Barr; Steven Shea; Wendy Post; Gregory Burke; Matthew J Budoff; Aaron R Folsom; Chia-Ying Liu; João A Lima; David A Bluemke Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Erik B Schelbert; Jie J Cao; Sigurdur Sigurdsson; Thor Aspelund; Peter Kellman; Anthony H Aletras; Christopher K Dyke; Gudmundur Thorgeirsson; Gudny Eiriksdottir; Lenore J Launer; Vilmundur Gudnason; Tamara B Harris; Andrew E Arai Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 56.272
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
Authors: Cynthia Philip; Rebecca Seifried; P Gabriel Peterson; Robert Liotta; Kevin Steel; Marcio S Bittencourt; Edward A Hulten Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2021-04-01
Authors: Barry Greenberg; James D Neaton; Stefan D Anker; William M Byra; John G F Cleland; Hsiaowei Deng; Min Fu; David A La Police; Carolyn S P Lam; Mandeep R Mehra; Christopher C Nessel; Theodore E Spiro; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Catherine M Vanden Boom; Faiez Zannad Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Alexander E Merkler; Traci M Bartz; Hooman Kamel; Elsayed Z Soliman; Virginia Howard; Bruce M Psaty; Peter M Okin; Monika M Safford; Mitchell S V Elkind; W T Longstreth Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Panagiotis Antiochos; Yin Ge; Kevin Steel; Scott Bingham; Shuaib Abdullah; J Ronald Mikolich; Andrew E Arai; W Patricia Bandettini; Amit R Patel; Afshin Farzaneh-Far; John F Heitner; Chetan Shenoy; Steve W Leung; Jorge A Gonzalez; Dipan J Shah; Subha V Raman; Victor A Ferrari; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Matthias Stuber; Orlando P Simonetti; Raymond Y Kwong Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 24.094