MINOCA due to vasospasm compared to other mechanisms: patients characteristics, evolution and prognosis

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Introduction coronary vasospasm is a common cause of MINOCA (myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries). The aim of this study is to compare characteristics and prognosis of patients (pts) with MINOCA due to vasospasm (MINOCA-V) vs those with MINOCA due to other causes (MINOCA-O). Methods we included all MINOCA pts between January 2015-December 2022. The definitions of MINOCA and vasospasm were based on European Clinical Guidelines. The diagnosis of vasospasm was made in the cath lab or with non-invasive bedside tests (ergonovine). The follow-up analysis included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: death from any cause, cardiovascular readmission, reinfarction and stroke). The median follow-up was 59.5 months [36-75]. Results there were a total of 120 MINOCA pts, of which 19 (16%) were MINOCA-V and 101 (84%) MINOCA-O (embolism, dissection, type II infarction, unknown). Regarding the clinical profile of MINOCA-V, they were fewer women (21 vs 49% p=0.03), younger (mean age 56±11 vs 63±15 p=0.03) and more smokers (78.9 vs 50.5% p=0.02). There were no significant differences in cocaine use (7.7 vs 5.5% p=0.75) or other baseline characteristics (Table 1). Not only there was a higher percentage of pts with ST elevation at admission in the vasospasm group (53 vs 12% p<0.01), but also they presented with a higher elevation of biochemical markers of myocardial damage (MMD), both troponin (125.11±203.8 vs 609.48±1661.2 ng/L,p<0.01) and CK (201±272.4 vs 338.75±384.3 U/L p=0.01). There were no significant differences in renal function (Cr 1.4±1.8 vs 1.1±1.5mg/dL p=0.15) and cholesterol levels (163.05±48 vs 172.6±65.7mg/dL p=0.99). The use of magnetic resonance imaging to complete diagnosis did not differ between both groups (26vs37% p=0.34), although it was more effective when approaching the etiology in MINOCA-O (0 vs 18%, p=0.04). The duration of admission was similar between both groups (6±4 days in MINOCA-V vs 5±4 in MINOCA-O, p=0.78). The treatment at discharge was different, being greater the use of nitrates (53vs10% p<0.01) and calcium antagonists (CA), both not dyhidropyridines (53 vs 7% p<0.01) and dihydropyridines (53 vs23% p=0.01) in MINOCA-V and less that of beta-blockers (BB) (0 vs 62% p<0.01) and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) (32vs73% p<0.01). During follow-up, the evolution was similar in terms of mortality (HR 1.81 IC95%[0.33-10] p=0.2) and MACE (HR 1.76 IC95%[0.69-4.51] p=0.17). No differences were found in cardiovascular readmissions (HR 1.04 IC95%[0.35-3.07] p=0.29), stroke (no cases in both groups) and reinfarction (HR 1.3 IC95%[0.25-6.81] p=0.57). Conclusion we conclude that pts with MINOCA-V are more likely to be male, younger and smokers than MINOCA-O. They usually present with ST elevation and increased elevation of MMD. Treatment at discharge is different: with greater use of nitrates and CA and lower ASA and BB. The prognosis is similar in both groups with no significant differences in mortality or MACE.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.