Higuchi Satoshi, Suzuki Makoto, Horiuchi Yu, Tanaka Hiroyuki, Saji Mike, Yoshino Hideaki, Nagao Ken, Yamamoto Takeshi, Takayama Morimasa
Tokyo CCU Network Scientific Committee, Tokyo, Japan.
Department of Cardiology, Kyorin University Hospital, 6-20-2 Shinkawa, Mitaka, Tokyo, 181-0004, Japan.
Heart Vessels. 2019 Jul;34(7):1140-1147. doi: 10.1007/s00380-019-01350-z. Epub 2019 Jan 25.
As the definition of type 2 acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is obscure, the characteristics of this disease vary among studies. The clinical significance of type 2 AMI is unclear. We surveyed the Tokyo Cardiovascular Care Unit (CCU) Network registry between 2010 and 2014. The difference in clinical characteristics and the impact of revascularization in patients with type 1 and type 2 AMI were evaluated. The cohort study included 12514 patients admitted to CCU (type 1 AMI, 12023; type 2 AMI, 491; mean age, 68 ± 15 years; 75% male). Coronary angiography was performed in 11402 patients (95%) with type 1 AMI and 427 (87%) with type 2 AMI (p < 0.001). Type 2 AMI was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (type 1 AMI, 769 (6.4%); type 2 AMI, 54 (11.0%); adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-2.41; p = 0.011) and higher non-cardiac mortality (adjusted OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.33-3.62; p = 0.002), but similar cardiac mortality rate compared to type 1 AMI (adjusted OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.71-1.91; p = 0.539). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 24 h after the onset was associated with lower in-hospital mortality in those with type 1 AMI (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.40-0.55; p < 0.001), but not in those with type 2 AMI (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.62-1.94; p = 0.763). The results persisted after adjustment for multivariate logistic regression analysis and inverted probability weighting. In conclusion, patients with type 2 AMI had higher in-hospital mortality owing to higher non-cardiac death. More refined definitions focusing on the treatment of comorbidities may be required, as the treatment strategy for type 2 AMI can be different from that for type 1 AMI.
由于2型急性心肌梗死(AMI)的定义尚不明确,不同研究中该病的特征存在差异。2型AMI的临床意义尚不清楚。我们调查了2010年至2014年东京心血管监护病房(CCU)网络登记处的数据。评估了1型和2型AMI患者的临床特征差异以及血运重建的影响。队列研究纳入了12514名入住CCU的患者(1型AMI患者12023例,2型AMI患者491例;平均年龄68±15岁;75%为男性)。11402例(95%)1型AMI患者和427例(87%)2型AMI患者接受了冠状动脉造影(p<0.001)。2型AMI与较高的院内死亡率相关(1型AMI患者769例(6.4%),2型AMI患者54例(11.0%);校正比值比(OR)1.64;95%置信区间(CI)1.12 - 2.41;p = 0.011)和较高的非心源性死亡率(校正OR 2.19;95%CI 1.33 - 3.62;p = 0.002),但与1型AMI相比,心脏死亡率相似(校正OR 1.17;95%CI 0.71 - 1.91;p = 0.539)。发病后24小时内进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)与1型AMI患者较低的院内死亡率相关(OR 0.47;95%CI 0.40 - 0.55;p<0.001),但与与2型AMI患者无关(OR 1.09;95%CI 0.62 - 1.94;p = 0.763)。在多因素逻辑回归分析和逆概率加权调整后,结果依然成立。总之,2型AMI患者因较高的非心源性死亡导致院内死亡率较高。由于2型AMI的治疗策略可能与1型AMI不同,可能需要更精确的定义以关注合并症的治疗。