Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 993

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic Review of Patients Presenting With Suspected Myocardial Infarction and Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries

Pasupathy, Sivabaskari, Air, Tracy, Dreyer, Rachel P., Tavella, Rosanna, Beltrame, John F.·2015·Circulation

Abstract

Background—: Myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is a puzzling clinical entity with no previous evaluation of the literature. This systematic review aims to (1) quantify the prevalence, risk factors, and 12-month prognosis in patients with MINOCA, and (2) evaluate potential pathophysiological mechanisms underlying this disorder. Methods and Results—: Quantitative assessment of 28 publications using a meta-analytic approach evaluated the prevalence, clinical features, and prognosis of MINOCA. The prevalence of MINOCA was 6% [95% confidence interval, 5%–7%] with a median patient age of 55 years (95% confidence interval, 51–59 years) and 40% women. However, in comparison with those with myocardial infarction associated with obstructive coronary artery disease, the patients with MINOCA were more likely to be younger and female but less likely to have hyperlipidemia, although other cardiovascular risk factors were similar. All-cause mortality at 12 months was lower in MINOCA (4.7%; 95% confidence interval, 2.6%–6.9%) compared with myocardial infarction associated with obstructive coronary artery disease (6.7%, 95% confidence interval, 4.3%–9.0%). Qualitative assessment of 46 publications evaluating the underlying pathophysiology responsible for MINOCA revealed the presence of a typical myocardial infarct on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in only 24% of patients, with myocarditis occurring in 33% and no significant abnormality in 26%. Coronary artery spasm was inducible in 27% of MINOCA patients, and thrombophilia disorders were detected in 14%. Conclusions—: MINOCA should be considered as a working diagnosis with multiple potential causes that require evaluation so that directed therapies may improve its guarded prognosis.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circulationaha.114.011201

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 993

Metadata

Authors
Pasupathy, S., Air, T., Dreyer, R. P., Tavella, R., & Beltrame, J. F.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2015-03-10
Volume
131
Issue
10
Pages
861-870
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W1964646781
Cited by
993
References
3
FWCI
9.80
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: Systematic Review of Patients Presenting With Suspected Myocardial Infarction and Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.114.011201
The paper
Pasupathy, S., Air, T., Dreyer, R. P., Tavella, R., & Beltrame, J. F. (2015). Systematic Review of Patients Presenting With Suspected Myocardial Infarction and Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.114.011201

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.