4.6 Article

Type-II Myocardial Infarction - Patient Characteristics, Management and Outcomes

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084285

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Type-II MI is defined as myocardial infarction (MI) secondary to ischemia due to either increased oxygen demand or decreased supply. This categorization has been used for the last five years, yet, little is known about patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. In the current work we assessed the epidemiology, causes, management and outcomes of type II MI patients. Methods: A comparative analysis was performed between patients with type-I and type-II MI who participated in two prospective national Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Surveys (ACSIS) performed in 2008 and 2010. Results: The surveys included 2818 patients with acute MI of whom 127 (4.5%) had type-II MI. The main causes of type-II MI were anemia (31%), sepsis (24%), and arrhythmia (17%). Patients with type-II MI tended to be older (75.6 +/- 12 vs. 63.8 +/- 13, p<0.0001), female majority (43.3% vs. 22.3%, p<0.0001), had more frequently impaired functional level (45.7% vs. 17%, p<0.0001) and a higher GRACE risk score (150 +/- 32 vs. 110 +/- 35, p<0.0001). Patients with type-II MI were significantly less often referred for coronary interventions (36% vs. 89%, p<0.0001) and less frequently prescribed guideline-directed medical therapy. Mortality rates were substantially higher among patients with type-II MI both at thirty-day (13.6% vs. 4.9%, p<0.0001) and at one-year (23.9% vs. 8.6%, p<0.0001) follow-ups. Conclusions: Patients with type-II compared to type-I MI have distinct demographics, increased prevalence of multiple comorbidities, a high-risk cardiovascular profile and an overall worse outcome. The complex medical condition of this cohort imposes a great therapeutic challenge and specific guidelines with recommended medical treatment and invasive strategies are warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据