SynthesisBMJ open2022
Diagnostic features, management and prognosis of type 2 myocardial infarction compared to type 1 myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contemporary Challenges and Strategies for Diagnosing and Managing in Type 2 Myocardial Infarction: A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Prevalence and Prognostic Implications of Atherosclerotic Coronary Artery Disease in Type 2 Myocardial Infarction.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Impact of in-hospital ACEI use on long-term prognosis in discharged type 2 myocardial infarction patients: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Observational
- Type 2 Myocardial Infarction: Navigating Diagnostic Pathways and Therapeutic Crossroads Between Invasive and Conservative Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- An easy-to-use model for screening type 2 myocardial infarction in geriatric patients with acute coronary syndrome: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Exosomal lncRNA FENDRR Orchestrates Immune Remodelling and Ferroptosis in the Comorbidity of Lung Cancer and Type 1 Myocardial Infarction.Human mutation · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based risk prediction model development for acute kidney injury in type 2 myocardial infarction patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Type 2 MI a legitimate efficacy endpoint in cardiovascular trials? A critical appraisal.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Type 2 Myocardial Infarction in a Sub-Saharan Africa Population: Challenging the Current Concepts-Data From REACTIV.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Observational
- Management and Outcomes of Type I and Type II Myocardial Infarction in Cardiogenic Shock.CJC open · 2024Article
- Trends and Outcomes of Type 2 Myocardial Infarction During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.Korean circulation journal · 2023Article
- Coronary Artery Disease: A Key Issue in Type 2 Myocardial Infarction: Systematic Review and Recent Findings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Myocardial infarction and viral triggers: what do we know by now?European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceDistinguishing type 2 (T2MI) from type 1 myocardial infarction (T1MI) in clinical practice can be difficult, and the management and prognosis for T2MI remain uncertain.
objectiveTo compare precipitating factors, risk factors, investigations, management and outcomes for T2MI and T1MI. DATA SOURCES: Medline and Embase databases as well as reference list of recent articles were searched January 2009 to December 2020 for term 'type 2 myocardial infarction'. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they used a universal definition of MI and reported quantitative data on at least one variable of interest. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were pooled using random-effect meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment tool. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed. All review stages were conducted by two reviewers. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Risk factors, presenting symptoms, cardiac investigations such as troponin and angiogram, management and outcomes such as mortality.
results40 cohort studies comprising 98 930 patients with T1MI and 13 803 patients with T2MI were included. Compared with T1MI, patients with T2MI were: more likely to have pre-existing chronic kidney disease (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.53 to 2.28) and chronic heart failure (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.82 to 3.03), less likely to present with typical cardiac symptoms of chest pain (OR 0.19; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.26) and more likely to present with dyspnoea (OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.86 to 3.74); more likely to demonstrate non-specific ST-T wave changes on ECG (OR 2.62; 95% CI 1.81 to 3.79) and less likely to show ST elevation (OR 0.22; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.28); less likely to undergo coronary angiography (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.12) and percutaneous coronary intervention (OR 0.06; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.10) or receive cardioprotective medications, such as statins (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.38) and beta-blockers (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.63). T2MI had greater risk of all cause 1-year mortality (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.91 to 5.08), with no differences in short-term mortality (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.63 to 2.85). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: This review has identified clinical, management and survival differences between T2MI and T1MI with greater precision and scope than previously reported. Differential use of coronary revascularisation and cardioprotective medications highlight ongoing uncertainty of their utility in T2MI compared with T1MI.
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.