The American journal of medicine · 2023
Diagnosis and Prognosis of Type 2 Myocardial Infarction Using Objective Evidence of Acute Myocardial Ischemia: A Validation Study.
Наблюдательное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Knott Jonathan D, De Michieli Laura, Ola Olatunde, Akula Ashok, Mehta Ramila A, Hodge David O, Tak Tahir, Cagin Charles, Gulati Rajiv, Jaffe Allan S, Sandoval Yader
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Differentiating type 2 myocardial infarction from myocardial injury can be difficult. In addition, the presence of objective evidence of myocardial ischemia may facilitate identification of high-risk type 2 myocardial infarction patients.
METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of adult emergency department patients undergoing high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) measurement. Patients with ≥1 hs-cTnT >99th percentile were adjudicated following the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. Patients were categorized as "subjective type 2 myocardial infarction" when ischemic symptoms were the lone criteria supporting type 2 myocardial infarction, or "objective type 2 myocardial infarction" when there was ≥1 objective clinical feature (electrocardiography, imaging, angiography) of acute myocardial ischemia. The primary outcome was mortality.
RESULTS: A total of 857 patients were included, among which 55 (6.4%) were classified as subjective type 2 myocardial infarction, 36 (4.2%) as objective type 2 myocardial infarction, and 702 (82%) as myocardial injury. Those with objective type 2 myocardial infarction had a higher risk of mortality during the index presentation (17% vs 1.7%, P < .0001; hazard ratio 11.1; 95% confidence interval, 3.7-33.4) and at 2-year follow-up (47% vs 31%, P = .04; hazard ratio 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-3.14) than those with myocardial injury. Objective type 2 myocardial infarction had a higher mortality than subjective type 2 myocardial infarction at index presentation (17% vs 2.0%, P = .01) and at 1 (25% vs 9.1%, P = .04) and 3 months (31% vs 13%, P = .04) follow-up. There were no mortality differences between subjective type 2 myocardial infarction and myocardial injury.
CONCLUSION: In patients diagnosed with type 2 myocardial infarction, those with objective evidence of myocardial ischemia have significantly worse outcomes compared with those with myocardial injury and subjective type 2 myocardial infarction. A more rigorous type 2 myocardial infarction definition that emphasizes these criteria may facilitate diagnosis and risk-stratification.
METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of adult emergency department patients undergoing high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) measurement. Patients with ≥1 hs-cTnT >99th percentile were adjudicated following the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. Patients were categorized as "subjective type 2 myocardial infarction" when ischemic symptoms were the lone criteria supporting type 2 myocardial infarction, or "objective type 2 myocardial infarction" when there was ≥1 objective clinical feature (electrocardiography, imaging, angiography) of acute myocardial ischemia. The primary outcome was mortality.
RESULTS: A total of 857 patients were included, among which 55 (6.4%) were classified as subjective type 2 myocardial infarction, 36 (4.2%) as objective type 2 myocardial infarction, and 702 (82%) as myocardial injury. Those with objective type 2 myocardial infarction had a higher risk of mortality during the index presentation (17% vs 1.7%, P < .0001; hazard ratio 11.1; 95% confidence interval, 3.7-33.4) and at 2-year follow-up (47% vs 31%, P = .04; hazard ratio 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-3.14) than those with myocardial injury. Objective type 2 myocardial infarction had a higher mortality than subjective type 2 myocardial infarction at index presentation (17% vs 2.0%, P = .01) and at 1 (25% vs 9.1%, P = .04) and 3 months (31% vs 13%, P = .04) follow-up. There were no mortality differences between subjective type 2 myocardial infarction and myocardial injury.
CONCLUSION: In patients diagnosed with type 2 myocardial infarction, those with objective evidence of myocardial ischemia have significantly worse outcomes compared with those with myocardial injury and subjective type 2 myocardial infarction. A more rigorous type 2 myocardial infarction definition that emphasizes these criteria may facilitate diagnosis and risk-stratification.