Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28746145›Full record

ArticleCoronary artery disease2018

Treatment and outcomes of type 2 myocardial infarction and myocardial injury compared with type 1 myocardial infarction.

Nathaniel R Smilowitz, Pritha Subramanyam, Eugenia Gianos, Harmony R Reynolds, Binita Shah, Steven P Sedlis

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Coronary artery disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Variations on classification of main types of myocardial infarction: a systematic review and outcome meta-analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2019
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Implications of a new clinical classification of acute myocardial infarction.European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care · 2025
    Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Long-term clinical outcomes of type 1Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nathaniel R SmilowitzDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, NYU School of Medicine.
Pritha SubramanyamDepartment of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
Eugenia GianosDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, NYU School of Medicine.
Harmony R ReynoldsDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, NYU School of Medicine.
Binita ShahDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, NYU School of Medicine.
Steven P SedlisDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, NYU School of Medicine.

Funding

Anti-inflammatory therapy during percutaneous coronary interventionIK2CX001074 · VA · VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI SHAH, BINITA · 2016 to 2021
–
CSRD VA IK2 CX001074
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundType 2 myocardial infarction (MI) is defined by a rise and fall of cardiac biomarkers and evidence of ischemia without unstable coronary artery disease (CAD) because of a mismatch in myocardial oxygen supply and demand. Myocardial injury is similar but does not fulfill the clinical criteria for MI. There is uncertainty in terms of the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of type 2 MI and myocardial injury in comparison with type 1 MI. PATIENTS AND

methodsPatients admitted to a Veterans Affairs tertiary care hospital with a rise and fall in cardiac troponin were identified. MI and injury subtypes, presentation, management, and outcomes were determined.

resultsType 1 MI, type 2 MI, and myocardial injury occurred in 137, 146, and 175 patients, respectively. Patients with type 2 MI were older (P=0.02), had lower peak cardiac troponin (P<0.001), and were less likely to receive aspirin and statin at discharge (P<0.001) than type 1 MI survivors. All-cause mortality (median follow-up: 1.8 years) was not different between patient groups (type 1 MI mortality: 29.9%, type 2 MI: 30.8%, myocardial injury: 29.7%; log rank P=0.94). A significant proportion of deaths were attributed to cardiovascular causes in all subgroups (type 1 MI: 34.1%, type 2 MI: 17.8%, myocardial injury: 30.8%).

conclusionPatients with type 2 MI and myocardial injury were less likely to receive medical therapy for CAD than those with type 1 MI. No differences in all-cause mortality among MI subtypes were observed. Additional studies to determine optimal medical therapy and risk stratification strategies for these high-risk populations are warranted.

Indexed as

MortalityPercutaneous Coronary InterventionAgedAged, 80 and overAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsAspirinCardiovascular DiseasesCause of DeathCoronary AngiographyElectrocardiographyFemaleHospitals, VeteransHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsMaleAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsAspirinHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsTroponin I

Identifiers

PMID28746145
PMCPMC5722665

What OpenQuestion holds

Texttitle and abstract
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.