Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2024
One-Year Prognosis Difference of Myocardial Infarction With or Without Coronary Obstruction in Developing Countries: Insights From the Moroccan Experience.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Bouchlarhem Amine, Merimi Ihssane, Bazid Zakaria, Ismaili Nabila, El Ouafi Noha
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The debate remains open as to the difference in prevalence of mortality and occurrence of acute events in patients with Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) and others with Myocardial infarction with coronary arteries disease (MI-CAD).
METHODS: We conducted a 2-year retrospective study for patients admitted for Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to analyze the clinical and prognostic characteristics of patients with MINOCA versus MI-CAD. We defined 1-year all-cause mortality as the primary outcome, and the secondary outcome as a composite of 1-year readmission for myocardial infarction or acute heart failure (AHF).
RESULTS: Our study included 1077 patients, 95.3% with MI-CAD and 4.7% with MINOCA. At admission, 71.1% patient were diagnosed STEMI and 28.9% with NSTEMI. The difference between the 2 groups was found on age (P < .001), hypertension, diabetes with consecutive P-values of .007 and .001, as well as Ejection fraction (P < .001). For the outcomes studied, the difference was significant between the 2 groups for all events, and MINOCA patients had a better prognosis than MI-CAD patients, with adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for 1-year mortality (HR = 0.601 P = .004), for readmission for ACS (HR = 0.662; P = .002) and for readmission for AHF (HR = 0.539; P = .019).
CONCLUSION: Despite the ambiguity in the genesis of MINOCA, the short- and long-term prognosis of these patients remains generally favorable.
METHODS: We conducted a 2-year retrospective study for patients admitted for Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to analyze the clinical and prognostic characteristics of patients with MINOCA versus MI-CAD. We defined 1-year all-cause mortality as the primary outcome, and the secondary outcome as a composite of 1-year readmission for myocardial infarction or acute heart failure (AHF).
RESULTS: Our study included 1077 patients, 95.3% with MI-CAD and 4.7% with MINOCA. At admission, 71.1% patient were diagnosed STEMI and 28.9% with NSTEMI. The difference between the 2 groups was found on age (P < .001), hypertension, diabetes with consecutive P-values of .007 and .001, as well as Ejection fraction (P < .001). For the outcomes studied, the difference was significant between the 2 groups for all events, and MINOCA patients had a better prognosis than MI-CAD patients, with adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for 1-year mortality (HR = 0.601 P = .004), for readmission for ACS (HR = 0.662; P = .002) and for readmission for AHF (HR = 0.539; P = .019).
CONCLUSION: Despite the ambiguity in the genesis of MINOCA, the short- and long-term prognosis of these patients remains generally favorable.