Key result
MI with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21-0.82) and MACE (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.26-0.69) compared to MICAD.
Why the study?
MINOCA is caused by a heterogeneous group of conditions with clinically significant sequelae, prompting a comparison of its clinical characteristics and prognosis with MICAD.
Does the prognosis and clinical characteristics of MINOCA differ from MICAD in patients presenting with a first MI?
Cohort (n=4,124)
Does the prognosis and clinical characteristics of MINOCA differ from MICAD in patients presenting with a first MI?
While patients with MINOCA have a better prognosis than those with MICAD, they still face a substantial long-term risk, with approximately 20% experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event over 4.5 years.
Background: MI with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is caused by a heterogenous group of conditions with clinically significant sequelae. Aim: This study aimed to compare the clinical characteristics and prognosis of MINOCA with MI with obstructive coronary artery disease (MICAD). Methods: Data on patients with a first presentation of MI between 2011 and 2014 were extracted from the Singapore Cardiac Longitudinal Outcomes Database and patients were classified as having either MINOCA or MICAD. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality (ACM) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite of ACM, recurrent MI, heart failure hospitalisation and stroke. Results: Of the 4,124 patients who were included in this study, 159 (3.9%) were diagnosed with MINOCA. They were more likely to be women, present with a non-ST-elevation MI, have a higher left ventricular ejection fraction and less likely to have diabetes, previous stroke or smoking history. Over a mean follow-up duration of 4.5 years, MINOCA patients had a lower incidence of ACM (10.1% versus 16.5%) and MACE (20.8% versus 35.5%) compared with MICAD. On multivariable analysis, patients with MINOCA had a lower risk of ACM (HR 0.42; 95% CI [0.21–0.82]) and MACE (HR 0.42; 95% CI [0.26–0.69]). Within the MINOCA group, older age, higher creatinine, a ST-elevation MI presentation, and the absence of antiplatelet use predicted ACM and MACE. Conclusion: While patients with MINOCA had better clinical outcomes compared with MICAD patients, MINOCA is not a benign entity, with one in five patients experiencing an adverse cardiovascular event in the long term.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wong et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Myocardial Infarction (n=4,124). MI with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) vs. MI with obstructive coronary artery disease (MICAD) was evaluated on All-cause mortality (ACM) (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.82). MI with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21-0.82) and MACE (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.26-0.69) compared to MICAD.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: