H Pendell Meyers1, Alexander Bracey2, Daniel Lee3, Andrew Lichtenheld3, Wei J Li4, Daniel D Singer4, Jesse A Kane5, Kenneth W Dodd6, Kristen E Meyers4, Henry C Thode4, Gautam R Shroff7, Adam J Singer4, Stephen W Smith3. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York; Department of Emergency Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York; Department of Emergency Medicine, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York. 5. Department of Cardiology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, Advocate Christ Medical Center, Oak Lawn, Illinois. 7. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) vs. non-STEMI (NSTEMI) paradigm prevents some NSTEMI patients with acute coronary occlusion from receiving emergent reperfusion, in spite of their known increased mortality compared with NSTEMI without occlusion. We have proposed a new paradigm known as occlusion MI vs. nonocclusion MI (OMI vs. NOMI). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the two paradigms within a single population. We hypothesized that STEMI(-) OMI would have characteristics similar to STEMI(+) OMI but longer time to catheterization. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected acute coronary syndrome population. OMI was defined as an acute culprit and either TIMI 0-2 flow or TIMI 3 flow plus peak troponin T > 1.0 ng/mL. We collected electrocardiograms, demographic characteristics, laboratory results, angiographic data, and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 467 patients, there were 108 OMIs, with only 60% (67 of 108) meeting STEMI criteria. Median peak troponin T for the STEMI(+) OMI, STEMI(-) OMI, and no occlusion groups were 3.78 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.18-7.63), 1.87 (IQR 1.12-5.48), and 0.00 (IQR 0.00-0.08). Median time from arrival to catheterization was 41 min (IQR 23-86 min) for STEMI(+) OMI compared with 437 min (IQR 85-1590 min) for STEMI(-) OMI (p < 0.001). STEMI(+) OMI was more likely than STEMI(-) OMI to undergo catheterization within 90 min (76% vs. 28%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: STEMI(-) OMI patients had significant delays to catheterization but adverse outcomes more similar to STEMI(+) OMI than those with no occlusion. These data support the OMI/NOMI paradigm and the importance of further research into emergent reperfusion for STEMI(-) OMI.
BACKGROUND: The current ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) vs. non-STEMI (NSTEMI) paradigm prevents some NSTEMI patients with acute coronary occlusion from receiving emergent reperfusion, in spite of their known increased mortality compared with NSTEMI without occlusion. We have proposed a new paradigm known as occlusion MI vs. nonocclusion MI (OMI vs. NOMI). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the two paradigms within a single population. We hypothesized that STEMI(-) OMI would have characteristics similar to STEMI(+) OMI but longer time to catheterization. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected acute coronary syndrome population. OMI was defined as an acute culprit and either TIMI 0-2 flow or TIMI 3 flow plus peak troponin T > 1.0 ng/mL. We collected electrocardiograms, demographic characteristics, laboratory results, angiographic data, and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 467 patients, there were 108 OMIs, with only 60% (67 of 108) meeting STEMI criteria. Median peak troponin T for the STEMI(+) OMI, STEMI(-) OMI, and no occlusion groups were 3.78 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.18-7.63), 1.87 (IQR 1.12-5.48), and 0.00 (IQR 0.00-0.08). Median time from arrival to catheterization was 41 min (IQR 23-86 min) for STEMI(+) OMI compared with 437 min (IQR 85-1590 min) for STEMI(-) OMI (p < 0.001). STEMI(+) OMI was more likely than STEMI(-) OMI to undergo catheterization within 90 min (76% vs. 28%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: STEMI(-) OMI patients had significant delays to catheterization but adverse outcomes more similar to STEMI(+) OMI than those with no occlusion. These data support the OMI/NOMI paradigm and the importance of further research into emergent reperfusion for STEMI(-) OMI.
Authors: H Pendell Meyers; Alexander Bracey; Daniel Lee; Andrew Lichtenheld; Wei J Li; Daniel D Singer; Zach Rollins; Jesse A Kane; Kenneth W Dodd; Kristen E Meyers; Gautam R Shroff; Adam J Singer; Stephen W Smith Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Monika Raczkowska-Golanko; Krzysztof Młodziński; Grzegorz Raczak; Marcin Gruchała; Ludmiła Daniłowicz-Szymanowicz Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Youngchul Choi; Kiwook Kim; Joo Suk Oh; Hyun Ho Jeong; Jung Taek Park; Yeon Young Kyong; Young Min Oh; Se Min Choi; Kyoung Ho Choi Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-09-22 Impact factor: 4.964