Key result
Type 1 and 2 MI linked to up to ~382% greater MACE risk versus no injury.
Why the study?
The Universal Definition classifies myocardial infarction by etiology, but its prognostic implications remain uncertain.
Population
120,734 patients evaluated for suspected acute coronary syndrome across 17 prospective studies
Comparison
Type 1 MI, type 2 MI, acute myocardial injury, and chronic myocardial injury vs no myocardial injury
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies
Follow-up
Minimum of 1 year
Authors
Loading...
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“What we demonstrate is that even if you a type 2 myocardial infarction secondary to another illness you are still at an increased risk of a future cardiovascular event, be that a future MI or death from a cardiac cause. And at the moment, these patients are treated in a very, very different way to patients with type 1 myocardial infarction.”
“That's where I think we need a better understanding of what's causing the injury, and we will have to have more refined understanding to be able to target a treatment to that group because it's such a heterogeneous group.”
Systematic review and meta-analysis reveals elevated cardiovascular risk across all myocardial injury classes, highlighting substantial competing noncardiovascular mortality in type 2 infarction.
Meta-Analysis (n=120,734)
Yes
Hazard Ratio: 4.82 (95% CI 3.55–6.57)
Boeddinghaus et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Suspected acute coronary syndrome (n=120,734). Myocardial injury and infarction (Universal Definition) vs. No myocardial injury was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as MI or cardiovascular death (HR 4.82, 95% CI 3.55-6.57). Compared with no myocardial injury, type 1 MI (HR 4.82; 95% CI 3.55-6.57) and type 2 MI (HR 3.36; 95% CI 2.92-3.86) were associated with a significantly increased risk of MACE.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: