Key result
Occlusive MI affects ~33% of NSTE-ACS patients and is linked to lower baseline LVEF.
Why the study?
Many patients with NSTE-ACS have a fully blocked culprit artery (OMI), but its prevalence and early effects on heart function and survival compared with NOMI were unclear in an Indian cohort.
Does occlusive myocardial infarction (OMI) compared to non-occlusive myocardial infarction (NOMI) worsen left ventricular ejection fraction and survival in patients with NSTE-ACS?
Observational (n=340)
No
Does occlusive myocardial infarction (OMI) compared to non-occlusive myocardial infarction (NOMI) worsen left ventricular ejection fraction and survival in patients with NSTE-ACS?
Absolute Event Rate: 44.1% vs 49.2%
p-value: p=<0.001
Nearly one-third of NSTE-ACS patients have an acutely occluded culprit artery (OMI), which is associated with worse left ventricular function at presentation and at 3 months compared to non-occlusive disease.
Background and objective: Acute coronary syndromes are classified by the electrocardiogram (ECG) into ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation types. However, many patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) have a fully blocked culprit artery, a condition called occlusive myocardial infarction (OMI). We aimed to find how common OMI is in an Indian NSTE-ACS cohort and to compare its early effects on heart function and survival with non-occlusive myocardial infarction (NOMI). Methods: In this retrospective observational study, 340 patients presenting within 24 hours of chest pain with NSTE-ACS who underwent coronary angiography at a tertiary cardiac centre were enrolled. OMI was defined angiographically as a totally or near-totally occluded culprit artery (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade 0-1) and NOMI as grade 2-3. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was measured at baseline and at three months, and all-cause death was recorded at 9-12 months. Logistic regression identified factors independently associated with OMI. Results: OMI was found in 112 of 340 patients (32.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 28.2-38.1%) and NOMI in 228 (67.1%). The two groups had similar baseline features and risk factors, but non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) was more common in the OMI group (83/112 (74.1%) vs. 140/228 (61.4%); p=0.028). OMI patients had a lower baseline LVEF (44.1 ± 11.4% vs. 49.2 ± 11.1%; p<0.001), which stayed lower at three months (50.4 ± 8.3% vs. 53.4 ± 8.5%; p=0.010) despite improvement in both groups. On regression, a lower baseline LVEF was the factor most strongly associated with OMI. Death rates were similar (1/88 (1.1%) vs. 6/175 (3.4%); p=0.49). Conclusions: About one in three NSTE-ACS patients undergoing coronary angiography in this single-centre, retrospective cohort had a blocked culprit artery, and this group had worse heart function at presentation and at three months despite similar baseline risk profiles. Given the retrospective, single-centre design and incomplete follow-up, these findings are hypothesis-generating: they support maintaining a high index of suspicion for a blocked artery in NSTE-ACS patients with reduced LVEF, but do not establish that earlier angiography improves outcomes in this subgroup.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Himral et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) (n=340). Occlusive myocardial infarction (OMI) vs. Non-occlusive myocardial infarction (NOMI) was evaluated on Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p=<0.001). Occlusive myocardial infarction occurred in 32.9% of NSTE-ACS patients and was associated with a significantly lower baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (44.1% vs. 49.2%) compared to NOMI.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: