Missing occlusions: Quality gaps for ED patients with occlusion MI.

ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) guidelines encourage monitoring of false positives (Code STEMI without culprit) but ignore false negatives (non-STEMI with occlusion myocardial infarction [OMI]). We evaluated the hospital course of emergency department (ED) patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using STEMI vs OMI paradigms. This retrospective chart review examined all ACS patients admitted through two academic EDs, from June 2021 to May 2022, categorized as 1) OMI (acute culprit lesion with TIMI 0-2 flow, or acute culprit lesion with TIMI 3 flow and peak troponin I >10,000 ng/L; or, if no angiogram, peak troponin >10,000 ng/L with new regional wall motion abnormality), 2) NOMI (Non-OMI, i.e. MI without OMI) or 3) MIRO (MI ruled out: no troponin elevation). Patients were stratified by admission for STEMI. Initial ECGs were reviewed for automated interpretation of "STEMI", and admission/discharge diagnoses were compared. Among 382 patients, there were 141 OMIs, 181 NOMIs, and 60 MIROs. Only 40.4% of OMIs were admitted as STEMI: 60.0% had "STEMI" on ECG, and median door-to-cath time was 103 min (IQR 71-149). But 59.6% of OMIs were not admitted as STEMI: 1.3% had "STEMI" on ECG (p < 0.001) and median door-to-cath time was 1712 min (IQR 1043-3960; p < 0.001). While 13.9% of STEMIs were false positive and had a different discharge diagnosis, 32.0% of Non-STEMIs had OMI but were still discharged as "Non-STEMI." STEMI criteria miss a majority of OMI, and discharge diagnoses highlight false positive STEMI but never false negative STEMI. The OMI paradigm reveals quality gaps and opportunities for improvement.

McLaren JTT ，El-Baba M ，Sivashanmugathas V ，Meyers HP ，Smith SW ，Chartier LB ... -  《-》

Accuracy of OMI ECG findings versus STEMI criteria for diagnosis of acute coronary occlusion myocardial infarction.

In the STEMI paradigm of Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), many NSTEMI patients have unrecognized acute coronary occlusion MI (OMI), may not receive emergent reperfusion, and have higher mortality than NSTEMI patients without occlusion. We have proposed a new OMI vs. Non-Occlusion MI (NOMI) paradigm shift. We sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy of OMI ECG findings vs. formal STEMI criteria for the diagnosis of OMI. We hypothesized that blinded interpretation for predefined OMI ECG findings would be more accurate than STEMI criteria for the diagnosis of OMI. We performed a retrospective case-control study of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. The primary definition of OMI was either 1) acute TIMI 0-2 flow culprit or 2) TIMI 3 flow culprit with peak troponin T ≥ 1.0 ng/mL or I ≥ 10.0 ng/mL. 808 patients were included, of whom 49% had AMI (33% OMI; 16% NOMI). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of STEMI criteria vs Interpreter 1 using OMI ECG findings among 808 patients were 41% vs 86%, 94% vs 91%, and 77% vs 89%, and for Interpreter 2 among 250 patients were 36% vs 80%, 91% vs 92%, and 76% vs 89%. STEMI(-) OMI patients had similar infarct size and mortality as STEMI(+) OMI patients, but greater delays to angiography. Blinded interpretation using predefined OMI ECG findings was superior to STEMI criteria for the ECG diagnosis of Occlusion MI. These data support further investigation into the OMI vs. NOMI paradigm and suggest that STEMI(-) OMI patients could be identified rapidly and noninvasively for emergent reperfusion using more accurate ECG interpretation.

Pendell Meyers H ，Bracey A ，Lee D ，Lichtenheld A ，Li WJ ，Singer DD ，Rollins Z ，Kane JA ，Dodd KW ，Meyers KE ，Shroff GR ，Singer AJ ，Smith SW ... -  《-》

Comparison of the ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) vs. NSTEMI and Occlusion MI (OMI) vs. NOMI Paradigms of Acute MI.

The current ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) vs. non-STEMI (NSTEMI) paradigm prevents some NSTEMI patients with acute coronary occlusion from receiving emergent reperfusion, in spite of their known increased mortality compared with NSTEMI without occlusion. We have proposed a new paradigm known as occlusion MI vs. nonocclusion MI (OMI vs. NOMI). We aimed to compare the two paradigms within a single population. We hypothesized that STEMI(-) OMI would have characteristics similar to STEMI(+) OMI but longer time to catheterization. We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected acute coronary syndrome population. OMI was defined as an acute culprit and either TIMI 0-2 flow or TIMI 3 flow plus peak troponin T > 1.0 ng/mL. We collected electrocardiograms, demographic characteristics, laboratory results, angiographic data, and outcomes. Among 467 patients, there were 108 OMIs, with only 60% (67 of 108) meeting STEMI criteria. Median peak troponin T for the STEMI(+) OMI, STEMI(-) OMI, and no occlusion groups were 3.78 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.18-7.63), 1.87 (IQR 1.12-5.48), and 0.00 (IQR 0.00-0.08). Median time from arrival to catheterization was 41 min (IQR 23-86 min) for STEMI(+) OMI compared with 437 min (IQR 85-1590 min) for STEMI(-) OMI (p < 0.001). STEMI(+) OMI was more likely than STEMI(-) OMI to undergo catheterization within 90 min (76% vs. 28%; p < 0.001). STEMI(-) OMI patients had significant delays to catheterization but adverse outcomes more similar to STEMI(+) OMI than those with no occlusion. These data support the OMI/NOMI paradigm and the importance of further research into emergent reperfusion for STEMI(-) OMI.

Meyers HP ，Bracey A ，Lee D ，Lichtenheld A ，Li WJ ，Singer DD ，Kane JA ，Dodd KW ，Meyers KE ，Thode HC ，Shroff GR ，Singer AJ ，Smith SW ... -  《JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE》

Ischemic ST-Segment Depression Maximal in V1-V4 (Versus V5-V6) of Any Amplitude Is Specific for Occlusion Myocardial Infarction (Versus Nonocclusive Ischemia).

Meyers HP ，Bracey A ，Lee D ，Lichtenheld A ，Li WJ ，Singer DD ，Rollins Z ，Kane JA ，Dodd KW ，Meyers KE ，Shroff GR ，Singer AJ ，Smith SW ... -  《Journal of the American Heart Association》

OMI/NOMI: Time for a New Classification of Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Kola M ，Shuka N ，Meyers HP ，Zaimi Petrela E ，Smith SW ... -  《Journal of Clinical Medicine》