Prognostic significance of the discrepancy between STEMI/NSTEMI paradigm and the angiographically confirmed diagnosis of Occlusion Myocardial Infarction: a retrospective cohort study
<h2>Abstract</h2><h3>Background</h3> It is commonly assumed that acute total occlusion of the infarct-related artery corresponds to the diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), yet growing evidence suggests that the ST-elevation/non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) paradigm is inadequate for guiding emergency revascularization. <h3>Methods</h3> We conducted a retrospective study and assessed the association of occlusion/non-occlusion myocardial infarction (OMI/NOMI) angiographic diagnosis with short-term mortality, compared with the ECG diagnosis of STEMI/NSTEMI. Data from 1540 patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous cardiac intervention (PCI) (68 % males, 40.3 % with initial diagnosis of STEMI, 51.6 % with final diagnosis of OMI) were analyzed. OMI was defined as MI with Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 0–2 flow before revascularization. Primary aim was to compare 30-day mortality risk between NSTEMI-OMI and STEMI. <h3>Results</h3> Among patients initially identified as NSTEMI, 37.3 % had OMI. Although the infarct size as assessed by peak troponin hs-cTnT was smaller in NSTEMI-OMI than in STEMI patients (median (IQR): 17497.16 (3596.56–25,000.10) vs 25,000.1 (10,893.41–25,000.10) ng/L; p < 0.001) however, NSTEMI-OMI patients did not differ in 30-day mortality risk in comparison to STEMI patients (HR 0.75, 95 %CI 0.51–1.11, p = 0.146) and had significantly higher mortality risk than NSTEMI-NOMI patients (HR 2.4, 95 %CI 1.46–4.01, p = 0.001). <h3>Conclusions</h3> The high prevalence of OMI among NSTEMI patients and their unfavorable outcomes clearly demonstrate that the assessment of acute myocardial infarction should not rely solely on ST-segment elevation on admission ECG, as the STEMI/NSTEMI classification may miss patients with acute coronary occlusion who require urgent reperfusion.
Authors
- Emil Dadański (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7048-8038)
- Jakub Rusinek (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3254-9156)
- Stanisław Bartuś (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4508-3551)
- Stephen W. Smith (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9166-9804)
- Maciej Zając (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4166-8623)
- Michał Terlecki (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1762-8043)
- Wojciech Wojakowski (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3681-5207)
- Maryla Kocowska‐Trytko (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5633-5825)
- Christopher Pavlinec
- Robert Herman (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8773-1732)
- Łukasz Rzeszutko (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6352-6024)
- Marek Rajzer (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7074-7263)
- H. Pendell Meyers (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7484-2022)
- Wiktoria Wojciechowska (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3075-3508)
- Łukasz Klima
Institutions
- Jagiellonian University (PL)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Medical University of Silesia (PL)
- Carolinas Medical Center (US)
- Flanders Environment Agency (BE)
- Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute (US)
- University of Naples Federico II (IT)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Heliyon
- Published
- 2025-11-28
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e44168
- Primary Topic
- Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00