Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38587840›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Application of the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction in Clinical Practice in Scotland and Sweden.

Caelan Taggart, Andreas Roos, Erik Kadesjö, Atul Anand, Ziwen Li, Dimitrios Doudesis, Kuan Ken Lee, Anda Bularga, Ryan Wereski, Matthew T H Lowry and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Implications of a new clinical classification of acute myocardial infarction.European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

18 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Caelan TaggartBritish Heart Foundation Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Andreas RoosDepartment of Emergency and Reparative Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Erik KadesjöDepartment of Emergency and Reparative Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Atul AnandBritish Heart Foundation Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Ziwen LiBritish Heart Foundation Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Dimitrios DoudesisBritish Heart Foundation Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Kuan Ken LeeBritish Heart Foundation Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Anda BulargaBritish Heart Foundation Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Ryan WereskiBritish Heart Foundation Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Matthew T H LowryBritish Heart Foundation Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Andrew R ChapmanBritish Heart Foundation Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Amy V FerryBritish Heart Foundation Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Anoop S V ShahDepartment of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Anton GardDepartment of Cardiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Bertil LindahlDepartment of Cardiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Gustaf EdgrenDepartment of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Nicholas L MillsBritish Heart Foundation Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Dorien M KimenaiBritish Heart Foundation Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
University of Edinburgh · GBBritish Heart Foundation · GBUppsala University · SEKarolinska Institutet · SEKarolinska University Hospital · SELondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBStockholm South General Hospital · SE

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/IBSRF/23/25161MRF
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Whether the diagnostic classifications proposed by the universal definition of myocardial infarction (MI) to identify type 1 MI due to atherothrombosis and type 2 MI due to myocardial oxygen supply-demand imbalance have been applied consistently in clinical practice is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the application of the universal definition of MI in consecutive patients with possible MI across 2 health care systems. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from 2 prospective cohorts enrolling consecutive patients with possible MI in Scotland (2013-2016) and Sweden (2011-2014) to assess accuracy of clinical diagnosis of MI recorded in hospital records for patients with an adjudicated diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 MI. Data were analyzed from August 2022 to February 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the proportion of patients with a clinical diagnosis of MI recorded in the hospital records who had type 1 or type 2 MI, adjudicated by an independent panel according to the universal definition. Characteristics and risk of subsequent MI or cardiovascular death at 1 year were compared. Results: A total of 50 356 patients were assessed. The cohort from Scotland included 28 783 (15 562 men [54%]; mean [SD] age, 60 [17] years), and the cohort from Sweden included 21 573 (11 110 men [51%]; mean [SD] age, 56 [17] years) patients. In Scotland, a clinical diagnosis of MI was recorded in 2506 of 3187 patients with an adjudicated diagnosis of type 1 MI (79%) and 122 of 716 patients with an adjudicated diagnosis of type 2 MI (17%). Similar findings were observed in Sweden, with 970 of 1111 patients with adjudicated diagnosis of type 1 MI (87%) and 57 of 251 patients with adjudicated diagnosis of type 2 MI (23%) receiving a clinical diagnosis of MI. Patients with an adjudicated diagnosis of type 1 MI without a clinical diagnosis were more likely to be women (eg, 336 women [49%] vs 909 women [36%] in Scotland; P < .001) and older (mean [SD] age, 71 [14] v 67 [14] years in Scotland, P < .001) and, when adjusting for competing risk from noncardiovascular death, were at similar or increased risk of subsequent MI or cardiovascular death compared with patients with a clinical diagnosis of MI (eg, 29% vs 18% in Scotland; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the universal definition of MI was not consistently applied in clinical practice, with a minority of patients with type 2 MI identified, and type 1 MI underrecognized in women and older persons, suggesting uncertainty remains regarding the diagnostic criteria or value of the classification.

Indexed as

Myocardial InfarctionAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesScotlandSweden

Identifiers

PMID38587840
PMCPMC11002705
OpenAlexW4394567452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.