Search

Background: The outcomes of real-world unstable angina (UA) in the high-sensitivity troponin era are unclear. We aimed to investigate the outcomes of UA referred to coronary angiography compared to stable angina (SA), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), STEMI and a general population., Methods: We included the 9,694 patients with no prior coronary artery disease (CAD) referred to invasive or CT coronary angiography from 2013 to 2018 in Northern Norway (51% SA, 12% UA, 23% NSTEMI and 14% STEMI), and 11,959 asymptomatic individuals recruited from the Tromsø Study. We used Cox models to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) for all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as cardiovascular death, MI or obstructive CAD., Results: The median follow-up time was 2.8 years. The incidence rate of death was 8.5 per 1000 person-years (95 % confidence interval [CI] 8.0-9.0) in the general population, 9.7 (95 % CI 8.3-11.5) in SA, 14.9 (95 % CI 11.4-19.6) in UA, 29.7 (95 % CI 25.6-34.3) in NSTEMI and 36.5 (95 % CI 30.9-43.2) in STEMI. In multivariable adjusted analyses, compared with UA, SA had a 38 % lower risk of death and a non-significant lower risk of MACE (HR 0.62, 95 % CI 0.44-0.89; HR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.66-1.11). NSTEMI had a 2.4-fold higher risk of death (HR 2.39, 95 % CI 1.38-4.14) and a 1.6-fold higher risk of MACE (HR 1.62, 95 % CI 1.11-2.38) compared tox UA during the first year after coronary angiography, but a similar risk thereafter. There was no difference in the risk of death for UA with non-obstructive CAD and obstructive CAD (HR 0.78, 95 % CI 0.39-1.57)., Conclusion: UA had a higher risk of death but a similar risk of MACE compared to SA and a lower 1-year risk of death and MACE compared to NSTEMI., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Objective: In the STEMI paradigm of Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), many NSTEMI patients have unrecognized acute coronary occlusion MI (OMI), may not receive emergent reperfusion, and have higher mortality than NSTEMI patients without occlusion. We have proposed a new OMI vs. Non-Occlusion MI (NOMI) paradigm shift. We sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy of OMI ECG findings vs. formal STEMI criteria for the diagnosis of OMI. We hypothesized that blinded interpretation for predefined OMI ECG findings would be more accurate than STEMI criteria for the diagnosis of OMI., Methods: We performed a retrospective case-control study of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. The primary definition of OMI was either 1) acute TIMI 0-2 flow culprit or 2) TIMI 3 flow culprit with peak troponin T ≥ 1.0 ng/mL or I ≥ 10.0 ng/mL., Results: 808 patients were included, of whom 49% had AMI (33% OMI; 16% NOMI). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of STEMI criteria vs Interpreter 1 using OMI ECG findings among 808 patients were 41% vs 86%, 94% vs 91%, and 77% vs 89%, and for Interpreter 2 among 250 patients were 36% vs 80%, 91% vs 92%, and 76% vs 89%. STEMI(-) OMI patients had similar infarct size and mortality as STEMI(+) OMI patients, but greater delays to angiography., Conclusions: Blinded interpretation using predefined OMI ECG findings was superior to STEMI criteria for the ECG diagnosis of Occlusion MI. These data support further investigation into the OMI vs. NOMI paradigm and suggest that STEMI(-) OMI patients could be identified rapidly and noninvasively for emergent reperfusion using more accurate ECG interpretation., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2021 The Authors.)