Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 10 February 2015
- Published on: 9 January 2015
- Published on: 19 November 2014
- Published on: 10 February 2015Re:"Type 2" myocardial infarction: Evidence-based or guesswork diagnosisShow More
We would like to thank Dr Y-Hassan for his valuable comments [1] on our manuscript on type 2 myocardial infarction (AMI) [2]. As pointed out in our article we share Dr Y-Hassan?s criticism against the vague diagnostic criteria for type 2 AMI in the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction [3,4] It may be difficult in many cases to distinguish type 2 AMI from type 1 AMI and other non-ischaemic conditions associated...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 9 January 2015what was the prevalence of concordant ST segment deviation in type 1 AMI with LBBB?Show More
The 6.3% prevalence of left bundle branch block(LBBB) among 17,488 subjects with type 1 acute myocardial infarction(AMI) translates into 1101 subjects with this manifestation of AMI(1). This represents a golden opportunity to document the prevalence of concordant ST segment deviation in those 1101 subjects so as to enable a comparison to be made with the study which reported a low prevalence of acute coronary occlusion in...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 19 November 2014"Type 2" myocardial infarction: Evidence-based or guesswork diagnosisShow More
I read with great interest the recently published article by the authors Baron et al [1] on October 20, 2014 in the journal ahead of print regarding "type 2" myocardial infarction (MI) in clinical practice. One of the important findings in this large study is the outsized variation in the incidence of "type 2" MI between the reporting sites in SWEDEHEART registry. "Type 2" MI was almost nonexistent in some sites (0.2%) and as...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.