Cian P McCarthy1, Dhaval Kolte1, Kevin F Kennedy2, Muthiah Vaduganathan3, Jason H Wasfy1, James L Januzzi4. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute/University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, USA. 3. Brigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Electronic address: jjanuzzi@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) patients may have different characteristics and outcomes when compared with type 1 MI. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare patients with type 1 MI to those with type 2 MI in the United States. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, MI patients were categorized over the 3 months following the introduction of an International Classification of Diseases-10th Revision code specific for type 2 MI. Baseline characteristics and inpatient and post-discharge outcomes among both cohorts were compared. RESULTS: There were 216,657 patients with type 1 MI, 37,765 patients with type 2 MI, and 1,525 patients with both type 1 and 2 MI. Patients with type 2 MI were older (71 years vs. 69 years; p < 0.001), were more likely to be women (47.3% vs. 40%; p < 0.001), and had higher prevalence of heart failure (27.9% vs. 10.9%; p < 0.001), kidney disease (35.7% vs. 25.7%; p < 0.001), and atrial fibrillation (31% vs. 21%; p < 0.001). Rates of coronary angiography (10.9% vs. 57.3%; p < 0.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (1.7% vs. 38.5%; p < 0.001), and coronary artery bypass grafting (0.4% vs. 7.8%; p < 0.001) were lower among type 2 MI patients. Patients with type 2 MI had lower risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 0.57 [95% confidence interval: 0.54 to 0.60]) and 30-day MI readmission (adjusted odds ratio: 0.46 [95% confidence interval: 0.35 to 0.59]). There was no difference in risk of 30-day all-cause or heart failure readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with type 2 MI have a unique cardiovascular phenotype when compared with type 1 MI, and are managed in a heterogenous manner. Validated management strategies for type 2 MI are needed.
BACKGROUND: Type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) patients may have different characteristics and outcomes when compared with type 1 MI. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare patients with type 1 MI to those with type 2 MI in the United States. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, MI patients were categorized over the 3 months following the introduction of an International Classification of Diseases-10th Revision code specific for type 2 MI. Baseline characteristics and inpatient and post-discharge outcomes among both cohorts were compared. RESULTS: There were 216,657 patients with type 1 MI, 37,765 patients with type 2 MI, and 1,525 patients with both type 1 and 2 MI. Patients with type 2 MI were older (71 years vs. 69 years; p < 0.001), were more likely to be women (47.3% vs. 40%; p < 0.001), and had higher prevalence of heart failure (27.9% vs. 10.9%; p < 0.001), kidney disease (35.7% vs. 25.7%; p < 0.001), and atrial fibrillation (31% vs. 21%; p < 0.001). Rates of coronary angiography (10.9% vs. 57.3%; p < 0.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (1.7% vs. 38.5%; p < 0.001), and coronary artery bypass grafting (0.4% vs. 7.8%; p < 0.001) were lower among type 2 MI patients. Patients with type 2 MI had lower risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 0.57 [95% confidence interval: 0.54 to 0.60]) and 30-day MI readmission (adjusted odds ratio: 0.46 [95% confidence interval: 0.35 to 0.59]). There was no difference in risk of 30-day all-cause or heart failure readmission. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with type 2 MI have a unique cardiovascular phenotype when compared with type 1 MI, and are managed in a heterogenous manner. Validated management strategies for type 2 MI are needed.
Authors: Xiongyi Han; Myung Ho Jeong; Liyan Bai; Joon Ho Ahn; Dae Young Hyun; Kyung Hoon Cho; Min Chul Kim; Doo Sun Sim; Young Joon Hong; Ju Han Kim; Youngkeun Ahn Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2022-02
Authors: Anda Bularga; Caelan Taggart; Filip Mendusic; Dorien M Kimenai; Ryan Wereski; Matthew T H Lowry; Kuan K Lee; Amy V Ferry; Stacey S Stewart; David A McAllister; Anoop S V Shah; Atul Anand; David E Newby; Nicholas L Mills; Andrew R Chapman Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Ryan Wereski; Dorien M Kimenai; Anda Bularga; Caelan Taggart; David J Lowe; Nicholas L Mills; Andrew R Chapman Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 35.855
Authors: Salik Nazir; Abdul Mannan Khan Minhas; Ishan S Kamat; Robert W Ariss; George V Moukarbel; Juan Carlos Plana Gomez; Savitri Fedson; Ajith Nair; Biykem Bozkurt; Hani Jneid Journal: Am J Med Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 5.928