Search

Background The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding system does not recognize type 2 myocardial infarction ( MI ) as a separate entity; therefore, patients with type 2 MI continue to be categorized under the general umbrella of non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction ( NSTEMI) . We aim to evaluate the impact of type 2 MI on hospital‐level NSTEMI metrics and discuss the implications for quality and public reporting. Methods and Results We conducted a single‐center retrospective analysis of 1318 patients discharged with a diagnosis of NSTEMI between July 2013 and October 2014. The Third Universal Definition was used to define type 1 and type 2 MI . Weighted Kaplan–Meier curves were used to analyze risk of mortality and readmission. Overall, 1039 patients met NSTEMI criteria per the Third Universal Definition; of those, 264 (25.4%) had type 2 MI . Patients with type 2 MI were older, were more likely to have chronic kidney disease, and had lower peak troponin levels. Compared with type 1 MI patients, those with type 2 MI had higher inpatient mortality (17.4% versus 4.7%, P P MI had higher mortality at both 30 days (risk ratio: 3.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.67–7.88) and 1 year (risk ratio: 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.44–2.73) after discharge. Type 2 MI was also associated with a lower 30‐day cardiovascular‐related readmission (risk ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.12–2.06). Conclusions NSTEMI metrics are significantly affected by type 2 MI patients. Type 2 MI patients have distinct etiologies, are managed differently, and have higher mortality compared with patients with type 1 MI . Moving forward, it may be appropriate to exclude type 2 MI data from NSTEMI quality metrics.

Background In the recently concluded PARTNER 2 trial, TF-TAVR cohort was shown to have lower risks of death or disabling strokes as compared to SAVR, whereas the outcomes with transthoracic TAVR were comparable with SAVR. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for all comparison studies between TAVR and SAVR and mortality as an outcome, irrespective of surgical risk. Randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched cohort studies that used a transfemoral approach exclusively or stratified results by route of access and reported data for TF-TAVR patients were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes of interest included 30-day and 1-year mortality, and 30-day complications. If significant heterogeneity was found in the random effects meta-analyses, a sensitivity analysis which individually removed each study was conducted. Results Seven studies reported results on TF-TAVR. Compared with SAVR, TF-TAVR had comparable 30-day mortality (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58, 1.06), 1-year mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78, 1.08) and 30-day risk of bleeding (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.31, 1.57). However, TF-TAVR was associated with lower 30-day risks of atrial fibrillation (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17, 0.45), acute kidney injury (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20, 0.71), and myocardial infarction (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23, 0.75) at a cost of higher incidences of vascular complications (RR 6.10, 95% CI 2.92, 12.73) and pacemaker implantations (RR 3.29, 95% CI 1.41, 7.65). Conclusions TF-TAVR is associated with lower 30-day risks of myocardial infarction compared to SAVR. Further studies are required to investigate the role of myocardial injury on overall TF-TAVR outcomes.