Skip main navigation

Myocardial Infarction With Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries (MINOCA): It's Time to Face Reality!

Originally publishedhttps://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.118.009635Journal of the American Heart Association. 2018;7:e009635

    Introduction

    Although the occurrence of an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) without significant coronary artery disease (CAD) was initially reported almost 80 years ago,1 the term MINOCA (myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries) has been used only recently to describe these patients.2 A sizeable minority of patients with AMI are found to have MINOCA.3 Unfortunately, some physicians fail to realize that the absence of obstructive coronary arteries does not exclude the possibility of an AMI. As such, patients with MINOCA may be misinformed about their diagnosis and inaccurately “reassured” about a favorable prognosis. Even when appropriately diagnosed, the management of this heterogeneous group of patients will vary depending on local practices and hospital resources. Over the past several years, a blossoming body of literature on MINOCA has examined this unique syndrome to guide clinicians caring for such patients.

    It is in this context that the work by Safdar and colleagues12 in this issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) should be viewed. The authors reported on the incidence, etiologies, and outcomes of patients with MINOCA included in the VIRGO (Results From the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI Patients) study. They demonstrated that in young patients (aged <55 years) presenting with AMI, MINOCA is relatively frequent, occurring in >10% of the population. Although the characteristics of patients with MINOCA and their counterparts with AMI and CAD (AMI‐CAD) were different, the mortality rates at 1 month (1.1% versus 0.6%, P=0.43) and 1 year (1.7% versus 2.3%, P=0.68) were not statistically different. Quality of life measures were also comparable between the 2 groups. This multicenter study, in which sex‐specific data were collected prospectively, outlines some key concepts related to MINOCA. First, MINOCA is not an uncommon presentation of AMI. It is more frequent in younger women and nonwhites, is associated with fewer traditional risk factors, and usually presents with non–ST‐segment elevation–myocardial infarction. Second, patients with a working diagnosis of MINOCA should undergo further testing to uncover its underlying etiology. Third, MINOCA is not a benign syndrome, with younger MINOCA patients having outcomes comparable to their AMI‐CAD counterparts.

    MINOCA is found in roughly 6% of AMI patients4; however, there is large variability in its reported prevalence, with a range of 3.5% to 15%,3 possibly attributable to differences in the studied populations and heterogeneity in its definition. MINOCA is also more common in younger patients and women.3 This explains to a large extent why the current study, examining adult AMI patients aged <55 years, with a 2:1 enrollment ratio of women to men, reported a higher prevalence of MINOCA than earlier reports. In this study, women with AMI had 5‐fold higher odds of having MINOCA than men with AMI, and 1 in 8 women with AMI were found to have MINOCA. It is also noteworthy that in the VIRGO study, all patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection were categorized as MINOCA. However, some patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection have obstructive disease, and this may have resulted in a larger‐than‐expected number of reported cases of MINOCA in the current study.

    Some earlier reports outlining the occurrence of nonobstructive coronary arteries used less stringent inclusion criteria to define MINOCA, resulting in overestimation of its prevalence. In a systematic review of MINOCA studies,4 for example, one‐third of the included MINOCA patients who were referred for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging were found to have myocarditis instead of AMI, and close to 20% had magnetic resonance imaging findings suggestive of Takotsubo cardiomyopathy. Because the aforementioned conditions result in troponin elevation in the absence of myocardial ischemia, these patients should not be given a diagnosis of MINOCA. Troponin elevation is not always secondary to myocyte necrosis (eg, apoptosis, normal cell turnover) and can occur in the setting of other systemic conditions (eg, sepsis, heart failure, myocarditis, pulmonary embolism).13 In keeping with the definition of MINOCA outlined in the 2016 European Society of Cardiology position paper,14 the term MINOCA should be reserved for those patients with an AMI (as defined by the “Third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction”15) in the absence of obstructive coronary arteries and no other clinical findings to suggest alternative causes for the elevated cardiac biomarkers. This highlights the importance of revisiting the initial diagnosis of AMI once nonobstructive coronary arteries are established angiographically and considering alternative diagnoses. This may help uncover other unrecognized conditions that lead to troponin elevation unrelated to myocardial ischemia and that often require different therapies (eg, immunosuppressive therapies for myocarditis, anticoagulant therapies for pulmonary embolism). Notably, in the current study, the investigators included only patients who were felt to have had a true AMI (requiring symptoms of myocardial ischemia and/or ECG changes in the setting of a rise and fall in cardiac biomarkers >99th percentile). Although they utilized either troponin or the less specific creatine kinase–MB biomarker, all patients underwent invasive coronary angiography, adding robustness to their findings. Patients with elevated cardiac markers due to presumed myocarditis or Takotsubo were not included in the VIRGO registry. This selective approach to defining these patients in the prospective multicenter VIRGO study helped provide a more accurate estimate of the true prevalence of MINOCA in an otherwise young AMI population. When examining MINOCA in future studies, it is important to use a strict approach to selection and a uniform and acceptable definition to maintain consistency and research rigor.

    MINOCA is a syndrome resulting from myriad conditions. Additional testing to identify its underlying etiology is crucial so that etiology‐targeted therapies can be implemented. A focused clinical history with a detailed assessment of the presenting symptoms, along with a family and social history, may provide diagnostic clues. When needed and if resources permit, additional testing should be considered, including intracoronary imaging studies with intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography, thrombophilia testing, provocative testing for coronary vasospasm, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Studies of intracoronary imaging have shown that ≈40% of patients with MINOCA have some evidence of plaque disruption.16 Although intravascular ultrasound is helpful in demonstrating plaque rupture,16 Optical coherence tomography is a better tool for identifying patients with plaque erosion18 and may be superior for the assessment of patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection.19 In the current report, intracoronary imaging was not routinely utilized, and that may explain why a large number of patients with MINOCA were “undefined.” Thrombophilia disorders can be detected in up to 14% of MINOCA patients4; however, a hypercoagulability syndrome was detected in only 3% of MINOCA patients in the current report, casting doubt on whether extensive thrombophilia testing was really undertaken in VIRGO. Provocative spasm has been detected in ≈27% of MINOCA patients,4 with even higher rates noted in Asian populations.4 In VIRGO, however, only a few patients underwent formal provocative testing for coronary vasospasm. The extent of required testing in patients with a presumptive diagnosis of MINOCA depends on the patient's clinical presentation. In a young female smoker, for example, with a family history of factor V Leiden deficiency,21 a hypercoagulable state is the most likely diagnosis, and one should focus on thrombophilia testing as the first diagnostic step. Although additional testing should always be considered, it may not be feasible because of costs, availability, and other considerations. At times, even extensive assessments may be inconclusive. In these cases, patients may fall into a category of unclassified MINOCA.

    Given the absence of significant atherosclerosis, it is intuitive that the prognosis of patients with MINOCA is better than that for myocardial infarction and CAD (MI‐CAD). In fact, many studies have suggested a more favorable prognosis for patients with MINOCA compared with patients with MI‐CAD.3 In contrast, a few studies have shown similar or worse outcomes for MINOCA patients.9 Pooled data of MINOCA studies reported 0.9% and 4.7% in‐hospital and 1‐year mortality rates, respectively.4 In the large Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence‐Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapy (SWEDEHEART) registry,23 24% of MINOCA patients experienced a major cardiovascular event (a composite of all‐cause death, rehospitalization for AMI, ischemic stroke, or heart failure) during a mean follow‐up of 4.5 years, including a 14% mortality rate. In the current study, mortality rates for MINOCA patients were numerically lower but not statistically different than their AMI‐CAD counterparts. Whether the comparable mortality between both AMI syndromes is real or a spurious finding related to the lower mortality event rates in the current study (ie, underpowered analysis) remains to be seen. Of note, mortality rates for MINOCA patients enrolled in the VIRGO registry were twice as high as those reported in a healthy population of young female patients.24 Furthermore, a similar proportion of patients with MINOCA and MI‐CAD presented in cardiac arrest or heart failure. Functional and psychosocial outcomes were also comparable between MINOCA and MI‐CAD patients. VIRGO adds tremendously to the MINOCA body of literature by providing detailed health status and psychosocial comparative data. Although it is possible that outcomes may vary according to the underlying etiology for MINOCA, the VIRGO registry had too few patients with etiology‐specific diagnoses to draw any firm conclusions. Overall, on the basis of many contemporary studies, it is clear that MINOCA is not a benign condition, and patients should be appropriately counseled and treated.

    It is interesting to note that among patients with AMI, there is a higher prevalence of nonobstructive coronary arteries among women, particularly young women.25 Nevertheless, the prognosis for young women with AMI is worse than that for young men.26 It is possible that this result is due to suboptimal (less aggressive and/or less targeted) therapeutic strategies in patients with “nonatherosclerotic” AMI. This is in keeping with the current study, in which 90% of MINOCA patients were women, and discharge therapies (eg, aspirin, β‐blockers, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor II blockers, and statins) were less frequently prescribed for MINOCA patients. Observational data from the SWEDEHEART registry reported favorable outcomes when MINOCA patients were treated with β‐blockers, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor II blockers, and statins, but no significant benefits were observed with P2Y12 inhibitors.35 Although the aforementioned data suggest a benefit from routine cardioprotective therapies,35 no randomized controlled trial data are available to inform clinicians on best practices. The MINOCA BAT (Randomized Evaluation of β‐Blocker and Angiotensin‐Converting Enzyme Inhibitor/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Treatment in MINOCA Patients) study is expected to begin enrollment in Europe in 2018 (with plans to expand enrollment to the United States and Canada in the next year). This study aims to randomize >5600 MINOCA patients to treatment with oral angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor II blockers and β‐blockers versus matching placebo and will examine rates of death and other cardiovascular events at 1 year. Until then, the indications for β‐blockers and angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor II blockers are less robust in MINOCA patients but maybe considered on the basis of the SWEDEHEART registry data.23 While awaiting the results of this important trial, it is reasonable to consider therapies including aspirin and statins for any patient with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

    In summary, MINOCA occurs frequently in young women with AMI and has comparable outcomes to MI‐CAD up to 1 year of follow‐up. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of evidence‐based data to guide our approach to the evaluation and management of MINOCA patients. This results in variable and suboptimal practice patterns and disparities in care. The time has come to make a change! To favorably affect outcomes, we must erase all prior misperceptions regarding this condition and institute appropriate long‐term investigations examining a wide array of diagnostic and therapeutic strategies in MINOCA patients.

    Disclosures

    None.

    Footnotes

    *Correspondence to: Jacqueline E. Tamis‐Holland, MD, Division of Cardiology, Mount Sinai Saint Luke's Hospital, 1111 Amsterdam Avenue, S&R 3, New York, NY. E‐mail:

    The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.

    References

    • 1 Gross H, Sternberg WH. Myocardial infarction without significant lesions of coronary arteries. Arch Intern Med. 1939; 64:249–267.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 2 Beltrame JF. Assessing patients with myocardial infarction and non‐obstructed coronary arteries (MINOCA). J Intern Med. 2013; 273:182–185.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 3 Smilowitz NR, Mahajan AM, Roe MT, Hellkamp AS, Chiswell K, Gulati M, Reynolds HR. Mortality of myocardial infarction by sex, age, and obstructive coronary artery disease status in the ACTION Registry‐GWTG (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry‐Get With the Guidelines). Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017; 10:e003443.LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 4 Pasupathy S, Air T, Dreyer RP, Tavella R, Beltrame JF. Systematic review of patients presenting with suspected myocardial infarction and non‐obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA). Circulation. 2015; 131:861–870.LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 5 Larsen AI, Nilsen DW, Yu J, Mehran R, Nikolsky E, Lansky AJ, Caixeta A, Parise H, Fahy M, Cristea E, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G, Peruga JZ, Brodie BR, Dudek D, Stone GW. Long‐term prognosis of patients presenting with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction with no significant coronary artery disease (from the HORIZONS‐AMI trial). Am J Cardiol. 2013; 111:643–648.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 6 Barr PR, Harrison W, Smyth D, Flynn C, Lee M, Kerr AJ. Myocardial infarction without obstructive coronary artery disease is not a benign condition (ANZACS‐QI 10). Heart Lung Circ. 2018; 27:165–174.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 7 Patel MR, Chen AY, Peterson ED, Newby LK, Pollack CV, Brindis RG, Gibson CM, Kleiman NS, Saucedo JF, Bhatt DL, Gibler WB, Ohman EM, Harrington RA, Roe MT. Prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of patients with non‐ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction and insignificant coronary artery disease: results from the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE) initiative. Am Heart J. 2006; 152:641–647.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 8 Dokainish H, Pillai M, Murphy SA, DiBattiste PM, Schweiger MJ, Lotfi A, Morrow DA, Cannon CP, Braunwald E, Lakkis N; TACTICS‐TIMI‐18 Investigators . Prognostic implications of elevated troponin in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome but no critical epicardial coronary disease: a TACTICS‐TIMI‐18 substudy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 45:19–24.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 9 Planer D, Mehran R, Ohman EM, White HD, Newman JD, Xu K, Stone GW. Prognosis of patients with non‐ST‐segment‐elevation myocardial infarction and nonobstructive coronary artery disease: propensity‐matched analysis from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 7:285–293.LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 10 Diver DJ, Bier JD, Ferreira PE, Sharaf BL, McCabe C, Thompson B, Chaitman B, Williams DO, Braunwald E. Clinical and arteriographic characterization of patients with unstable angina without critical coronary arterial narrowing (from the TIMI‐IIIA Trial). Am J Cardiol. 1994; 74:531–537.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 11 Roe MT, Harrington RA, Prosper DM, Pieper KS, Bhatt DL, Lincoff AM, Simoons ML, Akkerhuis M, Ohman EM, Kitt MM, Vahanian A, Ruzyllo W, Karsch K, Califf RM, Topol EJ. Clinical and therapeutic profile of patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes who do not have significant coronary artery disease. The Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy (PURSUIT) Trial Investigators. Circulation. 2000; 102:1101–1106.LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 12 Safdar B, Spatz ES, Dreyer RP, Beltrame JF, Lichtman JH, Spertus JA, Reynolds HR, Geda M, Bueno H, Dziura JD, Krumholz HM, D'Onofrio G. Presentation, clinical profile, and prognosis of young patients with myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA): results from the VIRGO Study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7:e009174. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.118.009174.LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 13 Alpert JS, Thygesen KA. The case for a revised definition of myocardial infarction‐the ongoing conundrum of type 2 myocardial infarction vs myocardial injury. JAMA Cardiol. 2016; 1:249–250.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 14 Agewall S, Beltrame JF, Reynolds HR, Niessner A, Rosano G, Caforio AL, De Caterina R, Zimarino M, Roffi M, Kjeldsen K, Atar D, Kaski JC, Sechtem U, Tornvall P; WG on Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy . ESC working group position paper on myocardial infarction with non‐obstructive coronary arteries. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38:143–153.MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 15 Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD; Joint ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Task Force for the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction , Katus HA, Lindahl B, Morrow DA, Clemmensen PM, Johanson P, Hod H, Underwood R, Bax JJ, Bonow RO, Pinto F, Gibbons RJ, Fox KA, Atar D, Newby LK, Galvani M, Hamm CW, Uretsky BF, Steg PG, Wijns W, Bassand JP, Menasché P, Ravkilde J, Ohman EM, Antman EM, Wallentin LC, Armstrong PW, Simoons ML, Januzzi JL, Nieminen MS, Gheorghiade M, Filippatos G, Luepker RV, Fortmann SP, Rosamond WD, Levy D, Wood D, Smith SC, Hu D, Lopez‐Sendon JL, Robertson RM, Weaver D, Tendera M, Bove AA, Parkhomenko AN, Vasilieva EJ, Mendis S. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2012; 126:2020–2035.LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 16 Reynolds HR, Srichai MB, Iqbal SN, Slater JN, Mancini GB, Feit F, Pena‐Sing I, Axel L, Attubato MJ, Yatskar L, Kalhorn RT, Wood DA, Lobach IV, Hochman JS. Mechanisms of myocardial infarction in women without angiographically obstructive coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2011; 124:1414–1425.LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 17 Ouldzein H, Elbaz M, Roncalli J, Cagnac R, Carrie D, Puel J, Alibelli‐Chemarin MJ. Plaque rupture and morphological characteristics of the culprit lesion in acute coronary syndromes without significant angiographic lesion: analysis by intravascular ultrasound. Ann Cardiol Angeiol (Paris). 2012; 61:20–26.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 18 Jia H, Abtahian F, Aguirre AD, Lee S, Chia S, Lowe H, Kato K, Yonetsu T, Vergallo R, Hu S, Tian J, Lee H, Park SJ, Jang YS, Raffel OC, Mizuno K, Uemura S, Itoh T, Kakuta T, Choi SY, Dauerman HL, Prasad A, Toma C, McNulty I, Zhang S, Yu B, Fuster V, Narula J, Virmani R, Jang IK. In vivo diagnosis of plaque erosion and calcified nodule in patients with acute coronary syndrome by intravascular optical coherence tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62:1748–1758.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 19 Hayes SN, Kim ESH, Saw J, Adlam D, Arslanian‐Engoren C, Economy KE, Ganesh SK, Gulati R, Lindsay ME, Mieres JH, Naderi S, Shah S, Thaler DE, Tweet MS, Wood MJ; American Heart Association Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease; Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; and Stroke Council . Spontaneous coronary artery dissection: current state of the science: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2018; 137:e523–e557.LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 20 Beltrame JF, Sasayama S, Maseri A. Differences in coronary vasomotor reactivity between Japanese and Caucasians: a review of the data. Aust NZ J Med. 1999; 29:175.Google Scholar
    • 21 Tanis BC, Bloemenkamp DG, van den Bosch MA, Kemmeren JM, Algra A, van de Graaf Y, Rosendaal FR. Prothrombotic coagulation defects and cardiovascular risk factors in young women with acute myocardial infarction. Br J Haematol. 2003; 122:471–478.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 22 Kang WY, Jeong MH, Ahn YK, Kim JH, Chae SC, Kim YJ, Hur SH, Seong IW, Hong TJ, Choi DH, Cho MC, Kim CJ, Seung KB, Chung WS, Jang YS, Rha SW, Bae JH, Cho JG, Park SJ; Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry Investigators . Are patients with angiographically near‐normal coronary arteries who present as acute myocardial infarction actually safe?Int J Cardiol. 2011; 146:207–212.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 23 Nordenskjold AM, Baron T, Eggers KM, Jernberg T, Lindahl B. Predictors of adverse outcome in patients with myocardial infarction with non‐obstructive coronary artery (MINOCA) disease. Int J Cardiol. 2018; 261:18–23.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 24 Kochanek KD, Murphy SL, Xu J, Tejada‐Vera B. Deaths: final data for 2014. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2016; 65:1–122.MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 25 Hochman JS, Tamis JE, Thompson TD, Weaver WD, White HD, Van de Werf F, Aylward P, Topol EJ, Califf RM. Sex, clinical presentation, and outcome in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries in aCute Coronary Syndromes IIb Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341:226–232.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 26 de Boer SP, Roos‐Hesselink JW, van Leeuwen MA, Lenzen MJ, van Geuns RJ, Regar E, van Mieghem NM, van Domburg R, Zijlstra F, Serruys PW, Boersma E. Excess mortality in women compared to men after PCI in STEMI: an analysis of 11,931 patients during 2000–2009. Int J Cardiol. 2014; 176:456–463.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 27 De Luca L, Marini M, Gonzini L, Boccanelli A, Casella G, Chiarella F, De Servi S, Di Chiara A, Di Pasquale G, Olivari Z, Caretta G, Lenatti L, Gulizia MM, Savonitto S. Contemporary trends and age‐specific sex differences in management and outcome for patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016; 5:e004202. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.116.004202.LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 28 Bavishi C, Bangalore S, Patel D, Chatterjee S, Trivedi V, Tamis‐Holland JE. Short and long‐term mortality in women and men undergoing primary angioplasty: a comprehensive meta‐analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2015; 198:123–130.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 29 Khera S, Kolte D, Gupta T, Subramanian KS, Khanna N, Aronow WS, Ahn C, Timmermans RJ, Cooper HA, Fonarow GC, Frishman WH, Panza JA, Bhatt DL. Temporal trends and sex differences in revascularization and outcomes of ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction in younger adults in the United States. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66:1961–1972.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 30 Dey S, Flather MD, Devlin G, Brieger D, Gurfinkel EP, Steg PG, Fitzgerald G, Jackson EA, Eagle KA; Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events investigators . Sex‐related differences in the presentation, treatment and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes: the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events. Heart. 2009; 95:20–26.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 31 Vaccarino V, Parsons L, Every NR, Barron HV, Krumholz HM. Sex‐based differences in early mortality after myocardial infarction. National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 Participants. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341:217–225.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 32 Zhang Z, Fang J, Gillespie C, Wang G, Hong Y, Yoon PW. Age‐specific gender differences in in‐hospital mortality by type of acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2012; 109:1097–1103.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 33 Bangalore S, Fonarow GC, Peterson ED, Hellkamp AS, Hernandez AF, Laskey W, Peacock WF, Cannon CP, Schwamm LH, Bhatt DL; Get with the Guidelines Steering Committee and Investigators . Age and gender differences in quality of care and outcomes for patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction. Am J Med. 2012; 125:1000–1009.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 34 Canto JG, Rogers WJ, Goldberg RJ, Peterson ED, Wenger NK, Vaccarino V, Kiefe CI, Frederick PD, Sopko G, Zheng ZJ; NRMI Investigators . Association of age and sex with myocardial infarction symptom presentation and in‐hospital mortality. JAMA. 2012; 307:813–822.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 35 Lindahl B, Baron T, Erlinge D, Hadziosmanovic N, Nordenskjold A, Gard A, Jernberg T. Medical therapy for secondary prevention and long‐term outcome in patients with myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2017; 135:1481–1489.LinkGoogle Scholar

    eLetters(0)

    eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate.

    Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.