Diagnosis of acute coronary occlusion in patients with non-STEMI by point-of-care echocardiography with speckle tracking

Three-Year Clinical Outcomes Based on Pre-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Coronary Blood Flow Grade and Symptom-to-Balloon Time in Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

We compared the 3-year clinical outcomes according to the degree of pre-percutaneous coronary intervention thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade (pre-PCI TIMI) and symptom-to-balloon time (SBT) individuals who underwent successful stent implantation with a diagnosis of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). A total of 4910 patients with NSTEMI were divided into two groups: pre-PCI TIMI 0/1 (SBT < 48 h: n = 1328, SBT ≥ 48 h: n = 558) and pre-PCI TIMI 2/3 (SBT < 48 h: n = 1965, SBT ≥ 48 h: n = 1059). The primary outcome was a 3-year all-cause death rate, and the secondary outcome was the composite endpoint of 3-year all-cause death, recurrent MI, or any repeat revascularization rate. After adjustment, in the pre-PCI TIMI 0/1 group, the 3-year all-cause death (p = 0.003), cardiac death (CD, p < 0.001), and secondary outcome (p = 0.030) values were significantly higher in the SBT ≥ 48 h group than in the SBT < 48 h group. However, patients with pre-PCI TIMI 2/3 had similar primary and secondary outcomes, regardless of the SBT group. Within the SBT < 48 h group, the pre-PCI TIMI 2/3 group exhibited significantly higher rates of 3-year all-cause death, CD, recurrent MI, and secondary outcome values than the pre-PCI TIMI 0/1 group. Patients in the SBT ≥ 48 h group with either pre-PCI TIMI 0/1 or TIMI 2/3 had similar primary and secondary outcomes. Our results suggest that shortening the SBT may confer a survival benefit in patients with NSTEMI and those in the pre-PCI TIMI 0/1 group compared to those in the pre-PCI TIMI 2/3 group.

Beyond the ST-segment in Occlusion Myocardial Infarction (OMI): Diagnosing the OMI-nous

The ST-segment elevation (STE) myocardial infarction (MI)/non-STEMI (NSTEMI) paradigm has been the central dogma of emergency cardiology for the last 30 years. Although it was a major breakthrough when it was first introduced, it is now one of the most important obstacles to the further progression of modern MI care. In this article, we trace why a disease with an established underlying pathology (acute coronary occlusion [ACO]) was unintentionally labeled with a surrogate electrocardiographic sign (STEMI/NSTEMI) instead of pathologic substrate itself (ACO-MI/non-ACO-MI or occlusion MI [OMI]/non-OMI [NOMI] for short), how this fundamental mistake caused important clinical consequences, and why we should change this paradigm with a better one, namely OMI/NOMI paradigm.

Accuracy of OMI ECG findings versus STEMI criteria for diagnosis of acute coronary occlusion myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE

In the STEMI paradigm of Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), many NSTEMI patients have unrecognized acute coronary occlusion MI (OMI), may not receive emergent reperfusion, and have higher mortality than NSTEMI patients without occlusion. We have proposed a new OMI vs. Non-Occlusion MI (NOMI) paradigm shift. We sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy of OMI ECG findings vs. formal STEMI criteria for the diagnosis of OMI. We hypothesized that blinded interpretation for predefined OMI ECG findings would be more accurate than STEMI criteria for the diagnosis of OMI.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective case-control study of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. The primary definition of OMI was either 1) acute TIMI 0-2 flow culprit or 2) TIMI 3 flow culprit with peak troponin T ≥ 1.0 ng/mL or I ≥ 10.0 ng/mL.

RESULTS

808 patients were included, of whom 49% had AMI (33% OMI; 16% NOMI). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of STEMI criteria vs Interpreter 1 using OMI ECG findings among 808 patients were 41% vs 86%, 94% vs 91%, and 77% vs 89%, and for Interpreter 2 among 250 patients were 36% vs 80%, 91% vs 92%, and 76% vs 89%. STEMI(-) OMI patients had similar infarct size and mortality as STEMI(+) OMI patients, but greater delays to angiography.

CONCLUSIONS

Blinded interpretation using predefined OMI ECG findings was superior to STEMI criteria for the ECG diagnosis of Occlusion MI. These data support further investigation into the OMI vs. NOMI paradigm and suggest that STEMI(-) OMI patients could be identified rapidly and noninvasively for emergent reperfusion using more accurate ECG interpretation.

Time for a new paradigm shift in myocardial infarction

The ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)/non-STEMI paradigm per the current guidelines has important limitations. It misses a substantial proportion of acute coronary occlusions (ACO) and results in a significant amount of unnecessary catheterization laboratory activations. It is not widely appreciated how poor is the evidence base for the STEMI criteria; the recommended STEMI cutoffs were not derived by comparing those with ACO with those without and not specifically designed for distinguishing patients who would benefit from emergency reperfusion. This review aimed to discuss the origins, evidence base, and limitations of STEMI/non-STEMI paradigm and to call for a new paradigm shift to the occlusion MI (OMI)/non-OMI.