Incidence, Frequency, and Clinical Characteristics of Type 3 Myocardial Infarction in Clinical Practice

Correlations and discrepancies between cardiac ultrasound, clinical diagnosis and the autopsy findings in early deceased patients with suspected cardiovascular emergencies

Cardiac ultrasound (CUS), either focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) or emergency echocardiography, is frequently used in cardiovascular (CV) emergencies. We assessed correlations and discrepancies between CUS, clinical diagnosis and the autopsy findings in early deceased patients with suspected CV emergencies. We retrospectively analysed clinical and autopsy data of 131 consecutive patients who died within 24 h of hospital admission. The type of CUS and its findings were analysed in relation to the clinical and autopsy diagnoses. CUS was performed in 58% of patients - FoCUS in 83%, emergency echocardiography in 12%, and both types of CUS in 5% of cases. CUS was performed more frequently in patients without a history of CV disease (64 vs. 40%, p = 0.08) and when the time between admission and death was longer (6 vs. 2 h, p = 0.021). In 7% of patients, CUS was inconclusive. In 10% of patients, the ante-mortem cause of death could not be determined, while discrepancies between the clinical and post-mortem diagnosis were found in 26% of cases. In the multivariate logistic regression model, only conclusive CUS [odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-7.39, p = 0.044] and chest pain at presentation (OR 30.19, 95%CI 5.65 -161.22, p < 0.001) were independently associated with congruent clinical and autopsy diagnosis. In a tertiary university hospital, FoCUS was used more frequently than emergency echocardiography in critically ill patients with suspected cardiac emergencies. Chest pain at presentation and a conclusive CUS were associated with concordant clinical and autopsy diagnoses.

Clinical characteristics and prognosis differences between isolated right and left ventricular myocardial infarction in the Chinese population: a retrospective study

Background and aims

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is divided into left ventricular myocardial infarction (LVMI) and right ventricular myocardial infarction (RVMI) according to the regions of myocardial ischemic necrosis. Clinical characteristics, treatment strategies, and prognosis differences between isolated RVMI and LVMI have not been well characterized. This study aimed to explore this difference of patients with isolated RVMI and LVMI.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included 3,506 patients hospitalized with coronary angiography diagnosed type 1 myocardial infarction (MI). Characteristics of admission and treatment strategies were compared in patients with isolated RVMI and LVMI. COX proportional hazards models with and without inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjustment were performed to estimate the difference in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality between the two groups.

Results

In this retrospective study, we found the frequency of isolated RVMI was significantly lower in the population than that of isolated LVMI (406 (11.6%) vs 3,100 (88.4%)). Patients with isolated RVMI have similar age, sex, and comorbidities to the patients with isolated LVMI. However, patients with isolated RVMI have lower heart rate and blood pressure, but higher rates of cardiogenic shock and atrioventricular block. It is noteworthy that patients with isolated RVMI are more likely to be complicated with the multivessel lesion. Patients with isolated RVMI have lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.36; 95% CI [0.24-0.54], p < 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.37; 95% CI [0.22-0.62], p < 0.001) than patients with isolated LVMI.

Conclusions

This study showed that patients with isolated RVMI and LVMI have similar baseline characteristics. However, the clinical manifestations were different in the isolated RVMI and LVMI patients. This study revealed a better prognosis of isolated RVMI patients compared to isolated LVMI, which indicates the ischemic region could be considered in AMI risk stratification models for better assessment of risk for adverse clinical events.

Risk Assessment of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Stroke Associated with Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists, Alone or in Combination, versus Long-Acting beta2-Agonists

Background

The long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) aclidinium was approved in Europe in 2012 to relieve symptoms in adult patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A post-authorization safety study was initiated to assess potential cardiovascular risks associated with LAMAs versus long-acting beta2-agonists.

Purpose

To estimate incidence rates and adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in new users of aclidinium, aclidinium/formoterol, tiotropium, other LAMA, long-acting beta-agonists/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS), and LAMA/LABA compared with initiators of LABA.

Patients and Methods

This population-based cohort study included patients with COPD aged ≥40 years initiating COPD medications in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum database from 2012 to 2019. Poisson regression models were used to estimate the IRR for AMI, stroke, and MACE in users of COPD medications versus LABA, adjusting for clinically relevant covariables.

Results

The study included 11,121 new users of aclidinium, 4804 of aclidinium/formoterol, 56,198 of tiotropium, 23,856 of other LAMA, 17,450 of LAMA/LABA, 70,289 of LABA/ICS, and 13,716 of LABA. During periods of continuous medication use after initiation (current use), crude incidence rates per 1000 person-years for AMI ranged from 8.7 (aclidinium/formoterol) to 12.4 (LAMA/LABA), for stroke ranged from 4.8 (aclidinium/formoterol) to 7.2 (LAMA/LABA), and for MACE ranged from 13.5 (aclidinium/formoterol) to 19.3 (LAMA/LABA). Using LABA as reference, adjusted IRRs [95% confidence intervals] were close to 1 for all study drugs for AMI (lowest for aclidinium/formoterol, 0.95 [0.60–1.52], and highest for LAMA/LABA, 1.23 [0.91–1.67]), stroke (lowest for aclidinium/formoterol, 0.64 [0.39–1.06], and highest for tiotropium, 1.02 [0.81–1.27] for tiotropium) and for MACE (lowest for aclidinium, 0.93 [0.75–1.16], and highest for LAMA/LABA, 1.24 [0.97–1.59]).

Conclusion

Risks of AMI, stroke, and MACE in current users of aclidinium, aclidinium/formoterol, tiotropium, other LAMA, LAMA/LABA, or LABA/ICS were similar to the risks among current users of LABA.

Demographic description and outcomes of a metropolitan network for myocardial infarction treatment

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to describe the myocardial infarction treatment network and compare in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing either primary angioplasty or pharmacoinvasive strategy in Mexico City and a broad metropolitan area.

METHODS

Cohort study including patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. We recorded demographic and clinical data, laboratory tests and in-hospital mortality in patients that underwent primary angioplasty and pharmacoinvasive strategy. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess mortality and Cox-regression assessed mortality risk factors.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty patients from a network of 60 hospitals and 9 states were analyzed. Of the total population, 166 were treated with pharmacoinvasive strategy and 174 with primary angioplasty. Door to thrombolytic time was 54 min and door to wire crossing time was 72.5 min; no differences in total ischemia time were demonstrated. No differences for in-hospital mortality (6.3% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.49) were found when comparing pharmacoinvasive and primary angioplasty groups. The main predictors for in-hospital mortality were: glucose > 180 mg/dl (HR 3.73), total ischemia time > 420 min (HR 3.18), heart rate > 90 bpm (HR 5.46), Killip and Kimball > II (HR 11.03), and left ventricle ejection fraction < 40% (HR 3.21).

CONCLUSIONS

This myocardial infarction network covers a large area and constitutes one of the biggest in the world. There were no differences regarding in-hospital mortality between pharmacoinvasive strategy and primary angioplasty. Pharmacoinvasive strategy is an effective and safe option for prompt reperfusion in Mexico.

Diagnosis of myocardial infarction at autopsy: AECVP reappraisal in the light of the current clinical classification

Ischemic heart disease is one of the leading causes of morbidity and death worldwide. Consequently, myocardial infarctions are often encountered in clinical and forensic autopsies, and diagnosis can be challenging, especially in the absence of an acute coronary occlusion. Precise histopathological identification and timing of myocardial infarction in humans often remains uncertain while it can be of crucial importance, especially in a forensic setting when third person involvement or medical responsibilities are in question. A proper post-mortem diagnosis requires not only up-to-date knowledge of the ischemic coronary and myocardial pathology, but also a correct interpretation of such findings in relation to the clinical scenario of the deceased. For these reasons, it is important for pathologists to be familiar with the different clinically defined types of myocardial infarction and to discriminate myocardial infarction from other forms of myocardial injury. This article reviews present knowledge and post-mortem diagnostic methods, including post-mortem imaging, to reveal the different types of myocardial injury and the clinical-pathological correlations with currently defined types of myocardial infarction.

Clinicopathological complexity in the application of the universal definition of myocardial infarction

A universal definition of myocardial infarction (UDMI) has been established, periodically updated, and refined over the past twenty years. The primary purpose of the UDMI is to bring uniformity and accuracy to clinical diagnosis. Herein, a review and analysis of the UDMI is presented with emphasis on clinicopathological correlation. Determination of the presence of myocardial injury is based on the detection of abnormal serum cardiac biomarkers, particularly cardiac troponin (cTn), and in the current fourth iteration of the UDMI, high sensitivity (hs)-cTn. Differentiation of myocardial infarction from other causes of myocardial injury requires the documentation of clinical evidence of myocardial ischemia. In this review, difficulties in applying the UDMI in actual practice are discussed, based on the experience and perspective of those of us who face these problems as part of our own practice of pathology. The complexity in application of the UDMI is highlighted by the presentation of five illustrative cases involving the differential diagnosis of myocardial injury and myocardial infarction due to atherothrombotic and nonatherothrombotic coronary artery disease. The cases include myocardial infarction due to severe coronary atherosclerosis, supply-demand mismatch, coronary artery dissection associated with an eosinophilic coronary periarteritis, and coronary thromboembolism, and a case with a differential diagnosis of myocarditis and myocardial infarction. These cases illustrate how pathological findings can contribute to more accurate application of the UDMI and how, when critically applied, the UDMI can be used to better characterize myocardial infarcts in clinical practice.