In‐Hospital Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction With Essential Thrombocythemia and Polycythemia Vera: Insights From the National Inpatient Sample

Abstract

Background Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with essential thrombocythemia (ET) or polycythemia vera is rare, and there are scarce real‐world data on its management and impact on in‐hospital outcomes. Methods and Results Dates of current retrospective cohort study were obtained from the US National Inpatient Sample from October 2015 to 2019 for hospitalizations with AMI. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality, and the secondary outcome was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, stroke, and bleeding; major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event was defined by a composite of all‐cause mortality, stroke, and cardiac complications. Of the 2 871 934 weighted AMI hospitalizations, 0.27% were with ET and 0.1% were with polycythemia vera. Before propensity matching, AMI hospitalization with ET was associated with increased risk of in‐hospital mortality (7.1% versus 5.7%; odds ratio [OR], 1.14 [95% CI, 1.04–1.24]), major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (12.6% versus 9%; OR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.26–1.45]), bleeding (12.7% versus 5.8%; OR, 2.28 [95% CI, 2.13–2.44]), and stroke (3.1% versus 1.8%; OR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.46–1.89]). Polycythemia vera was associated with an increased risk of in‐hospital mortality (7.8% versus 5.7%; OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.04–1.39]) and major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (12.0% versus 9%; OR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.05–1.33]). After propensity matching, ET was associated with increased risk of bleeding (12.6% versus 6.1%; OR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.70–2.90]), and AMI with polycythemia vera was not associated with worse in‐hospital outcomes. Conclusions AMI hospitalization with ET is associated with high bleeding risk before and after propensity score matching, particularly for hospitalizations treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. The management of AMI requires a multidisciplinary and patient‐centered approach to ensure safety and improve outcomes.

Disparities and Outcomes in the First and Second Year of the Pandemic on Events of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients

“…We then proceeded to retain only COVID-19 cases with a coexisting code for AMI, and two groups were made: patients admitted in 2020 vs. those admitted in 2021. Additional comorbidities, diagnoses, and procedures were included via their ICD-10 codes [20, [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. We also used Glasheen et al's version of the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scoring to evaluate the burden of comorbid disease in our study [30].…”

Risk of stroke for AMI treated with temporary mechanical circulatory support: ten-year data from National Inpatient Sample

“…Moreover, more granular data about the severity of stroke and Rankin Scales were not available. However, the NIS database has been extensively validated in previous publications [22,23]. This study included the largest sample of hospitalization comparing the rate of overall, ischemic, and hemorrhagic stroke, robust analyses were performed by multivariable regression and subgroup analysis.…”

Acute myocardial infarction in myeloproliferative neoplasms

“…Approximately 0.27% and 0.1% of MI-related hospitalizations due to thrombosis are attributed to ET and PV, respectively[ 31 ]. Thus, despite the relatively high incidence of this vascular complication in MPNs, it contributes very little to the etiology of MIs.…”