Of Occlusions, Inclusions, and Exclusions: Time to Reclassify Infarctions?

Missing occlusions: Quality gaps for ED patients with occlusion MI

BACKGROUND

ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) guidelines encourage monitoring of false positives (Code STEMI without culprit) but ignore false negatives (non-STEMI with occlusion myocardial infarction [OMI]). We evaluated the hospital course of emergency department (ED) patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using STEMI vs OMI paradigms.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review examined all ACS patients admitted through two academic EDs, from June 2021 to May 2022, categorized as 1) OMI (acute culprit lesion with TIMI 0-2 flow, or acute culprit lesion with TIMI 3 flow and peak troponin I >10,000 ng/L; or, if no angiogram, peak troponin >10,000 ng/L with new regional wall motion abnormality), 2) NOMI (Non-OMI, i.e. MI without OMI) or 3) MIRO (MI ruled out: no troponin elevation). Patients were stratified by admission for STEMI. Initial ECGs were reviewed for automated interpretation of "STEMI", and admission/discharge diagnoses were compared.

RESULTS

Among 382 patients, there were 141 OMIs, 181 NOMIs, and 60 MIROs. Only 40.4% of OMIs were admitted as STEMI: 60.0% had "STEMI" on ECG, and median door-to-cath time was 103 min (IQR 71-149). But 59.6% of OMIs were not admitted as STEMI: 1.3% had "STEMI" on ECG (p < 0.001) and median door-to-cath time was 1712 min (IQR 1043-3960; p < 0.001). While 13.9% of STEMIs were false positive and had a different discharge diagnosis, 32.0% of Non-STEMIs had OMI but were still discharged as "Non-STEMI."

CONCLUSIONS

STEMI criteria miss a majority of OMI, and discharge diagnoses highlight false positive STEMI but never false negative STEMI. The OMI paradigm reveals quality gaps and opportunities for improvement.

Beyond the ST-segment in Occlusion Myocardial Infarction (OMI): Diagnosing the OMI-nous

The ST-segment elevation (STE) myocardial infarction (MI)/non-STEMI (NSTEMI) paradigm has been the central dogma of emergency cardiology for the last 30 years. Although it was a major breakthrough when it was first introduced, it is now one of the most important obstacles to the further progression of modern MI care. In this article, we trace why a disease with an established underlying pathology (acute coronary occlusion [ACO]) was unintentionally labeled with a surrogate electrocardiographic sign (STEMI/NSTEMI) instead of pathologic substrate itself (ACO-MI/non-ACO-MI or occlusion MI [OMI]/non-OMI [NOMI] for short), how this fundamental mistake caused important clinical consequences, and why we should change this paradigm with a better one, namely OMI/NOMI paradigm.