The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction: Clinical Insights
Abstract
Aims: The universal definition of myocardial infarction (MI) classifies acute ischaemia into different classes according to lesion mechanism. Our aim was to perform a detailed comparison between these different types of MI in terms of baseline characteristics, management and prognosis. Methods and Results: An observational retrospective single-centre cohort study was performed, including 1,000 consecutive patients admitted for type 1 (76.4%) or type 2 MI (23.6%). Type 2 MI patients were older, had a higher prevalence of comorbidities and worse medical status at admission. In-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between the MI groups (8.8 vs. 9.7%, p = 0.602). However, mortality during follow-up was almost 3 times higher in type 2 MIs (HR 2.75, p < 0.001). Type 2 MI was an independent all-cause mortality risk marker, adding discriminatory power to the GRACE model. Finally, important differences in traditional risk score performances (GRACE, CRUSADE) were found between both MI types. Conclusions: Several important baseline differences were found between these MI types. Regarding prognosis, long-term survival is significantly compromised in type 2 MIs, potentially translating patients' higher medical complexity and frailty. Distinction between type 1 and type 2 MI seems to have important implications in clinical practice and likely also in the results of clinical trials.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Yusuf, S., Reddy, S., Ôunpuu, S., & Anand, S. (2001) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/hc4701.099488 · Cited by 1,141
Cited by
Epidemiology of coronary heart disease and acute coronary syndrome
Sanchis-Gomar, F., Perez-Quilis, C., Leischik, R., & Lucia, A. (2016) · Annals of Translational Medicine · doi:10.21037/atm.2016.06.33 · Cited by 1,203
Demographic and epidemiologic drivers of global cardiovascular mortality
Roth, G. A., Forouzanfar, M. H., Moran, A. E., Barber, R., Nguyen, G., Feigin, V. L., Naghavi, M., Mensah, G. A., & Murray, C. J. L. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1406656 · Cited by 1,188
Validation of the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Pooled Cohort Risk Equations
Muntner, P., Colantonio, L. D., Cushman, M., Goff, D. C., Howard, G., Howard, V. J., Kissela, B., Levitan, E. B., Lloyd-Jones, D. M., & Safford, M. M. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.2630 · Cited by 603
Szummer, K., Wallentin, L., Lindhagen, L., Alfredsson, J., Erlinge, D., Held, C., James, S., Kellerth, T., Lindahl, B., Ravn-Fischer, A., et al. (2017) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx515 · Cited by 443
Association of Race and Sex With Risk of Incident Acute Coronary Heart Disease Events
Safford, M. M., Brown, T. M., Muntner, P. M., Durant, R. W., Glasser, S., Halanych, J. H., Shikany, J. M., Prineas, R. J., Samdarshi, T., Bittner, V. A., et al. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.14306 · Cited by 316
Metadata
- Authors
- Paiva, L., Providência, R., Barra, S., Dinis, P., Faustino, A. C., & Gonçalves, L.
- Venue
- Cardiology
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2015
- Volume
- 131
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 13-21
- ISSN
- 0008-6312 (ISSN-L)
- 1421-9751
- OpenAlex
- W1582447064
- Cited by
- 2,513
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 280.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction: Clinical Insights. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000371739
- The paper
- Paiva, L., Providência, R., Barra, S., Dinis, P., Faustino, A. C., & Gonçalves, L. (2015). Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction: Clinical Insights. Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000371739
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.