Sandoval, Yader

Abstract Aims Type 2 myocardial infarction due to myocardial oxygen supply–demand imbalance is associated with poor outcomes. There are no guidelines to inform care for these patients. The consensus on the assessment and management of type 2 myocardial infarction is gained. Methods and results An international e-Delphi study including experts in type 2 myocardial infarction identified through systematic review was conducted. Participants were asked to describe their approach to (i) definition and diagnosis, (ii) risk stratification, (iii) assessment of coronary artery disease and cardiac function, (iv) specialty management, (v) treatment and secondary prevention, and (vi) communication and rehabilitation. Statements generated in round one were circulated, with consensus defined a priori as ≥70% agreement on a 5-point Likert scale. Where no consensus was reached, statements were amended and recirculated for a final round. The response rate was 56% (38/68), 54% (37/68), and 72% (49/68) in the first, second, and third rounds, respectively. Following the first round, 67 unique statements were generated across six domains. Overall, consensus was achieved on 64% (43/67) of statements. Consensus was achieved for 42% (5/12) of statements on the diagnosis of type 2 myocardial infarction, 75% (3/4) on risk stratification, 50% (9/18) on the assessment of coronary artery disease and cardiac function, 60% (6/10), on specialty management, 100% (9/9) on treatment and secondary prevention, and 79% (11/15) on communication and rehabilitation. Conclusion Consensus was obtained across a number of domains for the assessment and management of patients with type 2 myocardial infarction. However, there was limited agreement amongst experts on the diagnostic criteria, which may benefit from refinement.

Abstract Background Several guidelines groups have made recommendations about how to use natriuretic peptides (NPs) to screen patients with diabetes for incipient heart failure. This group is at risk for undetected and stage B heart failure, where structural heart disease is present despite the absence of clinical signs and symptoms. These recommendations are based on trial data that suggest there are therapeutic options to benefit these patients. Content These guidelines do not adequately account for the marked analytic differences between NP assays nor their high degree of biological and analytical variability. Thus, without additional data and guidance, these recommendations could lead to excessive testing for some groups but might disadvantage others. In addition, these issues could lead to difficulties in the interpretation of values. Accordingly, the Committee on Clinical Applications of Cardiac Bio Markers of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry has developed a consensus educational document to describe these difficulties and define areas where additional data are needed. Clinicians should be cognizant of differences in the assays for NPs, the high degree of variability of values, differences in sex and ethnicity and the need to factor in a variety of clinical and treatment variables in interpreting NP values. Summary These suggestions for diabetes eventually will include others at high risk. They will require close attention to the issues involved in measuring and interpreting NP values.