Why the study?
Existing universal definitions of post-revascularization MI use biomarker thresholds of uncertain prognostic importance, risking inappropriate assessment of therapies, clinical care pathways, and physician competence.
Should a new definition of clinically relevant MI based on prognostically significant biomarker thresholds replace the universal definition of MI after coronary revascularization?
Population
Patients undergoing coronary revascularization (PCI or CABG)
Comparison
New definition of 'clinically relevant MI' based… vs Universal definition of MI using cTn
Design
Guideline
Authors
Loading...
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“Widespread adoption of an MI definition not clearly linked to subsequent adverse events such as mortality or heart failure may have serious consequences for the appropriate assessment of devices and therapies, may affect clinical care pathways, and may result in misinterpretation of physician competence.”
“There is a lot of debate and controversy about how we best define type 4a MIs, with previous studies like EXCEL and ISCHEMIA using their own definitions. Depending on the definition used, this can change the outcomes of these trials quite significantly. The aim of our group was to come together and to critically appraise the literature—what's been done in the field with respect to validating the type 4a MI definitions—as well as streamline the definition of major and minor myocardial injury.”
“Some people speculate that troponin may be too sensitive in this situation and what is needed is evidence that an elevation of some degree of troponin following a procedure actually results in some alteration of the natural history of the patient. In other words, the definition of acute MI after a procedure really is of significance if it increases the risk of subsequent events such as death.”
New MI definition may refine post-revascularization risk stratification; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Should a new definition of clinically relevant MI based on prognostically significant biomarker thresholds replace the universal definition of MI after coronary revascularization?
Proposes a new, prognostically relevant definition of periprocedural MI after revascularization to better guide clinical trials, patient care, and quality assessment.
Moussa et al. (2013) conducted a review in Myocardial infarction after coronary revascularization. New definition of clinically relevant myocardial infarction was evaluated. A new definition for clinically relevant myocardial infarction after coronary revascularization is proposed, utilizing biomarker thresholds strongly linked to subsequent adverse events.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: