Background: Type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) is an imbalance between myocardial oxygen demand and supply, leading to myocardial ischemia. It is not due to plaque rupture, and is usually caused by a condition other than coronary artery disease (CAD). However, limited data are available comparing the prevalence of traditional coronary risk factors and mortality between type 1 and type 2 MI. We hypothesize that type 2 MI carries a higher mortality than type 1. Methods:We searched the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and MEDLINE for studies comparing type 1 MI with type 2 MI. The baseline variables were compared in each cohort. Summary risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random effects model to compare mortality between the two groups. Results:The included studies yielded 25,872 patients of whom 2,683 (10%) had type 2 MI. Compared to the type 1 cohort, the type 2 cohort had significantly higher inpatient (15% vs. 4.7%, P<0.00001), 30-day (17.6% vs. 5.3%, P<0.00001) and 1-yr mortality (27% vs. 13%, P<0.00001), as well as higher 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (20% vs. 9%, P<0.0001). Operative stress (20%) was the most common trigger of type 2 MI, followed by sepsis (19%), arrhythmia (18.63%), heart failure (15%), and anemia (12%).Conclusions: Type 2 MI is a common entity and is more common in females, older age groups, and in patients with multiple comorbidities: it also tends to result in higher mortality.

Dual CCB therapy lowers blood pressure significantly better than CCB monotherapy, without an increase in adverse events. However, given the lack of long-term outcome data on efficacy and safety, dual CCB therapy should be used with restraint, if at all. Large-scale long-term trials are needed to further evaluate such a strategy.

(ACCF/AHA) focused update on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with STsegment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) only gives a class II b (weak) indication for non-infarct artery intervention at the time of primary PCI. Recent randomized controlled trials, however, suggest strong evidence supporting complete revascularization.Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane central register for randomized controlled trials comparing complete versus infarct artery (IRA) only revascularization in patients with STEMI. A meta-analysis was performed using the data extracted from each study. Summary risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for five outcomes.Results: Six trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria yielding 1,792 patients. Follow up ranged from 6 months to 2.5 years. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was significantly lower in the complete revascularization group compared to the IRA only revascularization (13.8% vs. 25.1%, RR =0.51; 95% CI: 0.41-0.64, P<0.00001). It was attributed to significantly lower repeat revascularization rate in the complete revascularization group (8.2% vs. 18.9%, RR =0.41; 95% CI: 0.31-0.54, P<0.00001). This meta-analysis also showed a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality (2.0% vs. 4.6%, RR =0.42; 95% CI: 0.24-0.74; P=0.003), non-fatal myocardial infarction (4.37% vs. 5.76%, RR =0.64; 95% CI: 0.34-1.20; P=0.16) and allcause mortality rates [(4.6% vs. 6%), RR =0.75; 95% CI: 0.49-1.14, P=0.17] in the complete revascularization group, compared to the IRA revascularization group. Conclusions:In patients who present with STEMI, complete revascularization is associated with lower rates of MACE and cardiovascular deaths as compared to revascularization of the IRA alone. Even though the outcomes of all-cause mortality and nonfatal re-infarction rates were lower in the complete revascularization group, they were not significant.