Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 362

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Myocardial Infarction and Myocardial Injury

Open access
Chapman, Andrew R., Shah, Anoop S.V., Lee, Kuan Ken, Anand, Atul, Francis, Oliver, Adamson, Philip, McAllister, David A., Strachan, Fiona E., Newby, David E., Mills, Nicholas L.·2018·Circulation

Abstract

Background: Type 2 myocardial infarction and myocardial injury are common in clinical practice, but long-term consequences are uncertain. We aimed to define long-term outcomes and explore risk stratification in patients with type 2 myocardial infarction and myocardial injury. Methods: We identified consecutive patients (n=2122) with elevated cardiac troponin I concentrations (≥0.05 µg/L) at a tertiary cardiac center. All diagnoses were adjudicated as per the universal definition of myocardial infarction. The primary outcome was all-cause death. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (eg, nonfatal myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death) and noncardiovascular death. To explore competing risks, cause-specific hazard ratios were obtained using Cox regression models. Results: The adjudicated index diagnosis was type 1 or 2 myocardial infarction or myocardial injury in 1171 (55.2%), 429 (20.2%), and 522 (24.6%) patients, respectively. At 5 years, all-cause death rates were higher in those with type 2 myocardial infarction (62.5%) or myocardial injury (72.4%) compared with type 1 myocardial infarction (36.7%). The majority of excess deaths in those with type 2 myocardial infarction or myocardial injury were because of noncardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 2.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.92–2.81 versus type 1 myocardial infarction). Despite this finding, the observed crude major adverse cardiovascular event rates were similar between groups (30.6% versus 32.6%), with differences apparent after adjustment for covariates (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.69–0.96). Coronary heart disease was an independent predictor of major adverse cardiovascular events in those with type 2 myocardial infarction or myocardial injury (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.31–2.24). Conclusions: Despite an excess in noncardiovascular death, patients with type 2 myocardial infarction or myocardial injury have a similar crude rate of major adverse cardiovascular events as those with type 1 myocardial infarction. Identifying underlying coronary heart disease in this vulnerable population may help target therapies that could modify future risk.

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.117.031806

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 362

Metadata

Authors
Chapman, A. R., Shah, A. S. V., Lee, K. K., Anand, A., Francis, O., Adamson, P., McAllister, D. A., Strachan, F. E., Newby, D. E., & Mills, N. L.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2018-03-20
Volume
137
Issue
12
Pages
1236-1245
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2767629044
Cited by
362
References
1
FWCI
23.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Myocardial Infarction and Myocardial Injury. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.117.031806
The paper
Chapman, A. R., Shah, A. S. V., Lee, K. K., Anand, A., Francis, O., Adamson, P., McAllister, D. A., Strachan, F. E., Newby, D. E., & Mills, N. L. (2018). Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Myocardial Infarction and Myocardial Injury. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.117.031806

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.