Predictors of recurrent acute myocardial infarction despite initially successful percutaneous ...

Recent pharmacological therapies and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have substantially reduced mortality after myocardial infarction (MI). However, survivors of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are at substantial risk of recurrent myocardial infarction (re-MI). In a large Swedish registry study of almost 100,000 patients with first-time MI, 18.3% experienced re-MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death during the first year after the index event [1]. In this real-world registry, about 20% of MI survivors experienced an event during the following 3 years [1]. Another prospective cohort study (the ST segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] study) enrolled MI patients treated via primary PCI; the 3-year incidence of re-MI was 6.9% [2]. The risk factors for recurrent ischemic events are both clinical (age, diabetes mellitus, prior MI, stroke, unstable angina, heart failure, the extent of coronary artery dissection, and the use of revascularization to treat the index event) and biochemical (the levels of high-sensitivity troponins, C-reactive protein, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and growth differentiation factor-15) [36]. In this issue of the Korean Journal of Internal Medicine, Lee et al. [6] report a re-MI rate of 3.6% in patients for whom the initial AMI had been successfully treated via PCI; factors significantly predictive of re-AMI were diabetes mellitus, renal dysfunction, atypical chest pain, and multi-vessel disease [7]. After exclusion of prior MI at the time of the index event, 10,759 patients who underwent successful PCI (only) were clinically followed-up in terms of re-MI by the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR)-National Institute of Health (NIH). The re-MI incidence was lower than in previous trials. Re-MI events developed early ( What is the major risk factor for the development of re-MI? Lee et al. [6] did not explore laboratory markers such as the lipid profile, the appropriateness of clinical control of diabetes and hypertension, or lesional characteristics (the precise re-MI location or stent details [type, number, or length]) because the data were limited. One re-MI trial enrolling patients with similar clinical characteristics and risk factors indicated that inappropriate guideline-directed medical treatment (GDMT) may play a role in re-MI development [8]. A recent, prospective observational study found that re-MI of a non-culprit vessel lesion was twice as re-MI in a culprit vessel. Thus, risk factor management (including GDMT) is important. Lee et al. [6] found that re-MI was significantly associated with diabetes mellitus, renal dysfunction, atypical chest pain, and multi-vessel disease; of these, all except chest pain are well known predictors of re-MI [9]. Notably, atypical chest pain was a statistically significant predictor of re-MI (odds ratio, 1.495; 95% confidence interval, 1.12.5 to 1.987; p = 0.006). Such pain is much more common in older and fragile patients, and those with multiple comorbidities [10,11].

Although the cited study suggests that the independent predictors of re-AMI after successful PCI of index MI include diabetes, renal dysfunction, atypical chest pain, and multi-vessel disease, these risk factors are closely connected. Therefore, risk factor management (including GDMT) is important to reduce mortality in patients at high risk, even though PCI successfully treated the index MI.

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

REFERENCES 1. Stone SG, Serrao GW, Mehran R, et al. Incidence, predictors, and implications of reinfarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: the Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:543–551.
pmid
2. Scirica BM. Acute coronary syndrome: emerging tools for diagnosis and risk assessment. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:1403–1415.
pmid
3. Eagle KA, Lim MJ, Dabbous OH, et al. A validated prediction model for all forms of acute coronary syndrome: estimating the risk of 6-month postdischarge death in an international registry. JAMA 2004;291:2727–2733.
crossref pmid
4. Lindholm D, James SK, Bertilsson M, et al. Biomarkers and coronary lesions predict outcomes after revascularization in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. Clin Chem 2017;63:573–584.
crossref pmid pdf
5. Klingenberg R, Aghlmandi S, Raber L, et al. Improved risk stratification of patients with acute coronary syndromes using a combination of hsTnT, NT-proBNP and hsCRP with the GRACE score. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2018;7:129–138.
crossref pmid pdf
6. Lee SH, Jeong MH, Ahn JH, et al. Predictors of recurrent acute myocardial infarction despite successful percutaneous coronary intervention. Korean J Intern Med 2022;37:777–785.
crossref pdf
7. Varenhorst C, Hasvold P, Johansson S, et al. Culprit and nonculprit recurrent ischemic events in patients with myocardial infarction: data from SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies). J Am Heart Assoc 2018;7:e007174.
crossref pmid pmc
8. Jernberg T, Hasvold P, Henriksson M, Hjelm H, Thuresson M, Janzon M. Cardiovascular risk in post-myocardial infarction patients: nationwide real world data demonstrate the importance of a long-term perspective. Eur Heart J 2015;36:1163–1170.
crossref pmid
9. Yudi MB, Clark DJ, Farouque O, et al. Trends and predictors of recurrent acute coronary syndrome hospitalizations and unplanned revascularization after index acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J 2019;212:134–143.
crossref pmid
10. Hwang SY, Ahn YG, Jeong MH. Atypical symptom cluster predicts a higher mortality in patients with first-time acute myocardial infarction. Korean Circ J 2012;42:16–22.
crossref pmid pmc
11. Hammer Y, Eisen A, Hasdai D, et al. Comparison of outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome presenting with typical versus atypical symptoms. Am J Cardiol 2019;124:1851–1856.
crossref pmid

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif