Key result
Type 2 MI linked to higher mortality than type 1, with clinical triggers raising risk ~140%.
Why the study?
The proportions, concordance, and prognostic relevance of angiographic versus clinical definitions of type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction remained to be evaluated.
Does the presence of clinical triggers compared to atherothrombosis predict all-cause mortality in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing coronary angiography?
Observational (n=712)
Does the presence of clinical triggers compared to atherothrombosis predict all-cause mortality in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing coronary angiography?
Effect estimate: OR 2.4 (95% CI 1.5-3.6)
Absolute Event Rate: 20.1% vs 9.3%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Angiographic and clinical definitions of MI type are frequently discordant, and the presence of clinical triggers (Type 2 MI) is associated with higher all-cause mortality than atherothrombosis (Type 1 MI).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Triggers may identify higher-risk MI patients for closer monitoring; hypothesis-generating for subtype-specific management pending prospective trials.
Hoang et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Myocardial Infarction (n=712). Type 2 MI (presence of clinical triggers) vs. Type 1 MI (atherothrombosis) was evaluated on All-cause mortality (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.5-3.6, p=<0.0001). Type 2 myocardial infarction had higher all-cause mortality than type 1 (20.1% vs 9.3%, P=0.002), and the presence of clinical triggers was associated with worse prognosis (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.5-3.6).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: