Original article
Type 2 myocardial infarction in clinical practice
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Re:"Type 2" myocardial infarction: Evidence-based or guesswork diagnosis
    • Tomasz Baron
    • Other Contributors:
      • Kristina Hambraeus, Johan Sundstrom, David Erlinge, Tomas Jernberg, Bertil Lindahl, TOTAL-AMI study group

    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...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    what was the prevalence of concordant ST segment deviation in type 1 AMI with LBBB?

    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...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    "Type 2" myocardial infarction: Evidence-based or guesswork diagnosis

    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...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.