Type 1, Type 2 Myocardial Infarction and Non-Ischemic Myocardial Injury-Opinion from the Front Lines.

Differentiating patients with type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) and acute non-ischemic myocardial injury continues to be a problem for many clinicians. Type 1 MI is the most easily defined. It involves the rise and fall of blood troponin measurements (only falling values if the patient arrives late) with an appropriate clinical observation consistent with myocardial ischemia. Diagnosis and therapy of type 1 MI are well understood and usually present no problem to the physician. The clinical scenarios leading to type 2 MI and non-ischemic myocardial injury are, however, often fraught with greater degrees of uncertainty. In addition, therapy for these latter 2 entities is poorly defined. This review will present 3 patient scenarios that should help clinicians understand the difference between these 3 entities as well as possible therapeutic interventions.

Myocardial Infarction in the ISCHEMIA Trial: Impact of Different Definitions on Incidence, Prognosis, and Treatment Comparisons.

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), an initial invasive strategy did not significantly reduce rates of cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality in comparison with a conservative strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate/severe myocardial ischemia. The most frequent component of composite cardiovascular end points was myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: ISCHEMIA prespecified that the primary and major secondary composite end points of the trial be analyzed using 2 MI definitions. For procedural MI, the primary MI definition used creatine kinase-MB as the preferred biomarker, whereas the secondary definition used cardiac troponin. Procedural thresholds were >5 times the upper reference level for percutaneous coronary intervention and >10 times for coronary artery bypass grafting. Procedural MI definitions included (1) a category of elevated biomarker only events with much higher biomarker thresholds, (2) new ST-segment depression of ≥1 mm for the primary and ≥0.5 mm for the secondary definition, and (3) new coronary dissections >National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grade 3. We compared MI type, frequency, and prognosis by treatment assignment using both MI definitions. RESULTS: Procedural MIs accounted for 20.1% of all MI events with the primary definition and 40.6% of all MI events with the secondary definition. Four-year MI rates in patients undergoing revascularization were more frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (2.7% versus 1.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.98 [95% CI, 1.87-4.73]) and secondary (8.2% versus 2.0%; adjusted HR, 5.04 [95% CI, 3.64-6.97]) MI definitions. Type 1 MIs were less frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (3.40% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) and secondary (3.48% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) definitions. The risk of subsequent cardiovascular death was higher after a type 1 MI than after no MI using the primary (adjusted HR, 3.38 [95% CI, 2.03-5.61]; P<0.001) or secondary MI definition (adjusted HR, 3.52 [2.11-5.88]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA, type 1 MI events using the primary and secondary definitions during 5-year follow-up were more frequent with an initial conservative strategy and associated with subsequent cardiovascular death. Procedural MI rates were greater in the invasive strategy and with the use of the secondary MI definition. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Diagnostic and therapeutic implications of type 2 myocardial infarction: review and commentary.

The Task Force for the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction recently published updated guidelines for the clinical and research diagnosis of myocardial infarction under a variety of circumstances and in a variety of categories. A type 1 myocardial infarction (MI) is usually the result of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease with thrombotic coronary arterial obstruction secondary to atherosclerotic plaque rupture, ulceration, fissuring, or dissection, causing coronary arterial obstruction with resultant myocardial ischemia and necrosis. Patients with a type 2 MI do not have atherosclerotic plaque rupture. In this latter group of patients, myocardial necrosis occurs because of an increase in myocardial oxygen demand or a decrease in myocardial blood flow. Type 2 MI has been the subject of considerable clinical discussion and confusion. This review by knowledgeable members of the Task Force seeks to help clinicians resolve the confusion surrounding type 2 MI.