ArticleCoronary artery disease2022
Patterns and outcomes of invasive management of type 2 myocardial infarction in the United States.
Article in Coronary artery disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Associated with Invasive Coronary Angiography Use in Type 2 Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review with Narrative Synthesis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Type 2 myocardial infarction: challenges in diagnosis and treatment.European heart journal · 2025Review
- Coronary Artery Disease: A Key Issue in Type 2 Myocardial Infarction: Systematic Review and Recent Findings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundType 2 myocardial infarction (MI) occurs due to a mismatch in myocardial oxygen supply and demand without unstable coronary artery disease. We sought to identify patterns, predictors and outcomes of invasive management of type 2 MI in the USA.
methodsAdults aged ≥18 years hospitalized with type 2 MI were identified in a cross-sectional study from the 2018 National Inpatient Sample. Invasive management was defined as invasive coronary angiography or revascularization. Patient, hospital and geographic characteristics associated with invasive management were identified by multivariable logistic regression. Propensity-matched cohorts were generated to evaluate associations between invasive vs. conservative management and mortality.
resultsWe identified 268 850 admissions with type 2 MI in 2018. Type 2 MI patients had a high burden of comorbidities and were commonly admitted with diagnoses of circulatory (39.7%), infectious (23.1%) or respiratory (10.8%) illness. Only 11.2% of type 2 MI were managed invasively, of which 17.9% underwent coronary revascularization. Odds of invasive management were higher with commercial insurance [adjusted OR (aOR) 1.39; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.27-1.52] and lower with Medicaid (aOR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96) vs. Medicare. Significant heterogeneity in invasive management of type 2 MI was observed by geographic region (range 7.2-13.8%), independent of patient and hospital factors. Invasive management was associated with lower in-hospital mortality than conservative management overall (3.9 vs. 9.1%; P < 0.001) and in propensity-matched analyses (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.84).
conclusionInvasive management of type 2 MI varies by insurance status and geography, highlighting uncertainty regarding optimal management and potential disparities in clinical care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.