Use of objective evidence of myocardial ischemia to facilitate the diagnostic and prognostic distinction between type 2 myocardial infarction and myocardial injury.

AIMS: First, describe how acute myocardial infarction criteria are used to diagnose type 1 (T1MI) and 2 (T2MI) myocardial infarction. Second, determine whether subjective or objective criteria are used for T2MI. Third, examine outcomes for T2MI based on the presence or absence of objective evidence of myocardial ischemia compared with myocardial injury.

METHODS AND RESULTS: Post-hoc analysis of UTROPIA (NCT02060760), a prospective, observational, cohort study involving 1640 consecutive emergency department patients with serial high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I among whom 74 (4.5%) had T1MI, 103 (6.3%) T2MI, and 245 (15%) myocardial injury. Compared with T1MI, patients with T2MI were less likely to have ischemic symptoms (97% vs. 83%), Q waves (24% vs. 1%), new ST-T wave changes (74% vs. 51%), new regional wall motion abnormality (64% vs. 11%), and a culprit lesion on coronary angiography (59% vs. 0%) (all p <0.05). T2MIs were more likely to be diagnosed using subjective criteria (symptoms alone) than T1MI (42% vs. 12%, p <0.0001). Patients with objective T2MI, but not subjective T2MI, had a two-fold increase in early mortality compared with myocardial injury, with 30- and 60-day hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of 2.3 (0.9, 6.2) and 2.0 (0.9, 4.7) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with T2MI, many cases are diagnosed using subjective criteria. The presence of objective evidence of myocardial ischemia may identify a higher-risk group of T2MI patients in whom early outcomes are worse than myocardial injury. Emphasis on using objective evidence of myocardial ischemia to diagnose T2MI may result in a more precise and specific disease definition.