Clinical Impact of Atypical Chest Pain and Diabetes Mellitus in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction from Prospective KAMIR-NIH Registry

Ongoing Opioid Treatment and Symptoms of Myocardial Infarction in Calls to the Emergency Medical Services

Background

Ongoing opioid treatment can potentially modify symptoms of myocardial infarction (MI) and cause a lack of recognition and treatment delay.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to examine MI symptoms and the time to hospitalization for patients in ongoing opioid treatment compared to patients without ongoing opioid treatment.

Methods

We evaluated calls to the Copenhagen Emergency Medical Services in Denmark from 2014 to 2018. Calls were included when followed by hospitalization and a diagnosis of MI. Symptoms of MI and the time from call to hospitalization in patients in ongoing opioid treatment initiated prior to the onset of MI were compared to a control group of MI patients without opioid treatment.

Results

In total, 6,633 calls were included; 552 calls from patients in opioid treatment and 6,081 calls from controls. Patients in opioid treatment were older and had more comorbidities than controls. Chest pain was less prevalent in MI patients in opioid treatment compared to controls (adjOR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.57-0.85). The median time from the call to hospitalization was longer in patients in opioid treatment than in controls (50 vs 47 minutes; P = 0.006).

Conclusions

In calls to the Emergency Medical Services, opioid treatment initiated prior to the onset of MI was associated with less frequent chest pain in MI. Therefore, awareness of ongoing opioid treatment may improve telephone triage of patients with MI, as symptom presentation in opioid-treated patients may differ and potentially challenge and delay the emergency response.

Atypical Presentations of Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review of Case Reports

There is a rising incidence of coronary artery diseases and myocardial infarction (MI). Mortality associated with acute MI (AMI) is directly linked to the time to receive treatment and missed diagnoses. Although health professionals are aware of typical AMI presentation, atypical MI is difficult to diagnose, which on the other hand, is likely to have an impact on morbidity and mortality. Therefore, it is prudent to know such atypical presentations, especially for emergency and primary care physicians. We aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical presentations of atypical MI and analyze them to characterize the common clinical presentations of atypical MI. We researched the PubMed database, did citation tracking, and performed Google Scholar advanced search to find the cases reported on the atypical presentation of MI published from January 2000 to September 2022. Articles of all languages were included; Google Translate was used to translate articles published in languages other than English. A total of 496 (56 PubMed articles, 340 citations from included PubMed articles, and 100 articles from Google Scholar advanced search) were screened; 52 case reports were evaluated, and their data were analyzed. Atypical presentations of myocardial infarction are vast; patients may have chest pain without typical characteristics of angina pain or may not have chest pain. No typical characterization could be done. Most patients were in their fifth decade or above of their life and commonly presented with pain and discomfort in the abdomen, head, and neck regions. Prodromal symptoms were consistent findings, and many patients had two to three comorbidities out of four common comorbidities, i.e., diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and substance abuse. A patient who is 50 years old or more, having comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, history of tobacco or marijuana usage, presenting with prodromal symptoms like shortness of breath, dizziness, fatigue, syncope, gastrointestinal discomfort or head/neck pain should be suspected for atypical MI.

Outcomes of Nonagenarians with Acute Myocardial Infarction with or without Coronary Intervention

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the mainstay treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI); however, many clinicians are reluctant to perform PCI in the elderly population. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of PCI versus medical therapy in nonagenarian Korean patients with AMI. We compared the clinical outcomes of nonagenarian patients with AMI with or without PCI. From the pooled data, based on a series of Korean AMI registries during 2005−2020, 467 consecutive patients were selected and categorized into two groups: the PCI and no-PCI groups. The primary endpoint was 1-year major adverse cardiac event (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and any revascularization. Among the 467 participants, 68.5% received PCI. The PCI group had lower proportions of Killip classes III-IV, previous heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, but had higher proportions of all prescribed medications and STEMI diagnosis. The 1-year MACE and all-cause death were higher in the no-PCI group, although partially attenuated post-IPTW. Our study showed that nonagenarian patients with AMI undergoing PCI had better clinical outcomes than those without PCI. Nonetheless, further investigation is needed in the future to elucidate whether PCI is beneficial for this population.

Gender Differences in All-Cause Mortality after Acute Myocardial Infarction: Evidence for a Gender-Age Interaction

Gender difference studies in mortality after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have shown inconsistent results. A total of 13,104 patients from the KAMIR-NIH between November 2011 and December 2015 were classified into young (n = 3837 [29.3%]) and elderly (n = 9267 [70.7%]) patients. For the study, women <65 and men <55 years of age were considered “young”. In the adjusted model of the entire cohort, there was no significant difference in three-year all-cause mortality between women and men (17.8% vs. 10.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.953; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.799–1.137). However, when the entire cohort was subdivided into two age groups, young women showed an 84.3% higher mortality rate than young men (adjusted HR, 1.843; 95% CI, 1.098–3.095). Contrariwise, elderly women patients had a 20.4% lower hazard of mortality compared with elderly men (adjusted HR, 0.796; 95% CI, 0.682–0.929). The interaction of gender with age was significant, even after multiple adjustments (adjusted p for interaction = 0.003). The purpose of this study was to assess whether gender differences depend on the patients’ age. Based on our analysis, higher mortality of young women remains even in the contemporary era of AMI. A better understanding of the mechanisms underlying these differences is warranted.