Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35177458›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Diagnostic features, management and prognosis of type 2 myocardial infarction compared to type 1 myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kyle White, Mansey Kinarivala, Ian Scott

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Myocardial infarction and viral triggers: what do we know by now?European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kyle WhiteInternal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia kyle.white@health.qld.gov.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0129-8297
Mansey KinarivalaInternal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.
Ian ScottInternal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7596-0837
The University of Queensland · AUPrincess Alexandra Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Myocardial InfarctionPercutaneous Coronary InterventionCohort StudiesCoronary AngiographyHumansPrognosiscoronary heart diseaseischaemic heart diseasemyocardial infarction

Identifiers

PMID35177458
PMCPMC8860077
OpenAlexW4213322425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.