Responses

Download PDFPDF

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. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

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.