ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2026
Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction: Do We Need an Updated Definition?
Review in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Periprocedural myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains a debated entity, especially in the era of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays, which frequently detect biomarker rises even when clinically meaningful ischemia is absent. This review critically examines the main contemporary frameworks used to define these events, including the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (UDMI), the Academic Research Consortium (ARC)-2 consensus, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) definition, comparing biomarker thresholds, requirements for objective evidence of ischemia, and procedural criteria. We discuss how differences among definitions shape reported event rates and contribute to heterogeneity in event adjudication across studies. Key pathophysiologic mechanisms of myocardial injury during PCI are summarized, including side-branch compromise, distal embolization, microvascular dysfunction, and mechanical complications. Particular attention is given to the limitations of current criteria, such as incomplete assay standardization, variability in sampling timing, inconsistent reliability of ancillary criteria, including electrocardiography and imaging, and an uneven relationship between biomarker elevation and subsequent outcomes. Finally, we outline priorities for future updates, including harmonization of biomarker thresholds, greater emphasis on relative biomarker dynamics, and structured adjudication that integrates biomarkers with objective ischemic evidence. These steps may improve diagnostic specificity, reduce misclassification, and strengthen the clinical and trial relevance of periprocedural ischemic endpoints.
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.