The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 121, Issue 12 , Pages 1065-1071, December 2008

Impact of Changing Definitions for Myocardial Infarction: A Report from the AMIS Registry

  • Philip Urban, MD

      Affiliations

    • Cardiovascular Department, La Tour Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland
    • Corresponding Author InformationRequests for reprints should be addressed to Philip Urban, MD, Cardiovascular Department, La Tour Hospital, 1 Av JD Maillard, Geneva 1217, Switzerland
  • ,
  • Dragana Radovanovic, MD

      Affiliations

    • AMIS Plus Data Center, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
  • ,
  • Paul Erne, MD

      Affiliations

    • Cardiology Department, Cantonal Hospital, Luzern, Switzerland
  • ,
  • Jean-Christophe Stauffer, MD

      Affiliations

    • Cardiology Center, Cantonal Hospital, Fribourg, Switzerland
  • ,
  • Giovanni Pedrazzini, MD

      Affiliations

    • Cardiocentro, Lugano, Switzerland
  • ,
  • Stephan Windecker, MD

      Affiliations

    • Cardiology Department, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland
  • ,
  • Osmund Bertel, MD

      Affiliations

    • Cardio-Vascular Center Zurich, Klinik im Park, Zurich, Switzerland
  • ,
  • AMIS Plus investigators

Abstract 

Background

To assess the impact of the new definitions of myocardial infarction, we retrospectively analyzed 9190 patients from 63 hospitals with reported peak troponin values included between 2001 and 2007 in the Swiss AMIS (Acute Myocardial Infarction in Switzerland) Plus registry.

Methods

Patients were classified as belonging to the “classic” myocardial infarction group (peak total CK or CK-MB above the upper limit of normal, or troponin T [TnT] >0.1 μg/L or troponin I [TnI] >0.1-0.8 μg/L [depending on the assay]) or “new” myocardial infarction group (TnT >0.01 μg/L or TnI >0.01-0.07 μg/L).

Results

There were 489 patients in the “new” group who were similar to the 8701 “classic” patients in terms of age, sex, and prevalence of both diabetes and renal failure, but more frequently had a history of prior coronary artery disease, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. At admission, they less frequently had ST elevation on their electrocardiogram, were more frequently in Killip class I, and received less primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Hospital mortality was 3.5% in the “new” and 6.7% in the “classic” myocardial infarction group (P=.004). In a subset of patients with a longer follow-up, mortality at 3 and 12 months was 1% and 5.6%, respectively, for “new” and 1.6% and 4%, respectively, for “classic” myocardial infarction (NS).

Conclusions

Patients with minimal elevation of serum troponin have smaller infarctions, less aggressive treatment, fewer early complications, and a better early prognosis than patients with higher serum biomarker levels. After discharge, however, their prognosis currently appears no different from that of patients with a “classic” myocardial infarction event.

Keywords: Acute coronary syndrome, Biomarkers, Coronary artery disease, Myocardial infarction, Troponin

 

 Funding: The AMIS Plus registry is funded by unrestricted grants from the Swiss Heart Foundation and from Abbott, Astra-Zeneca, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Essex/MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, Guidant, INVATEC, Johnson & Johnson – Cordis Division, A Menarini, Medtronic, Mepha Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme-Chibret, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering, Servier, SPSS, St. Jude Medical, and Takeda Pharma, all in Switzerland.

 Conflict of interest: none.

PII: S0002-9343(08)00843-7

doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.08.020

The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 121, Issue 12 , Pages 1065-1071, December 2008