Statistics from Altmetric.com
Few disorders have as broad implications for public health and cardiovascular medicine as myocardial infarction. Herrick’s first description in living man in 1912 was populated by a combination of clinical symptoms and electrocardiographic changes.1 In this prescient description of six cases, the diagnosis was confirmed at autopsy in one who died 3 days after his clinical diagnosis. Interestingly, a period of relative quiescence ensued after Herrick’s original description. In 1959, the World Health Organization contributed to the definition of myocardial infarction with the admonition that it consist of a combination of two of the following three characteristics2:
A rise in cardiac enzymes
An evolutionary ECG pattern which involved Q wave development.
Subsequently, major interest and animated debate emerged concerning the frequency, causes, preferred treatment, and prognosis of acute myocardial infarction. A convergence of factors, including those listed in box 1, helped to galvanise interest in better defining myocardial infarction with a view to both greater sensitivity and specificity.
Box 1 Factors stimulating better definition of myocardial infarction
Coronary bypass surgery
Percutaneous coronary revascularisation
Advances in reperfusion therapy
Novel therapeutic strategies aimed at reducing the frequency and size of myocardial infarction
Novel biomarkers with enhanced sensitivity and specificity
New cardiac imaging techniques with enhanced detection capacity
Given this global significance of myocardial infarction and these multifactorial factors, it was decided that the European Society of Cardiology and American College of Cardiology should convene a consensus conference in July 1999 to examine potential new definitions of myocardial infarction.3 The International Task Force set upon its work recognising that any change in the definition of such an important diagnostic entity might have profound and different implications depending on a particular interest of the individual or group. Figure 1 summarises some of the stakeholders and constituencies so affected.
The key elements of the 2000 consensus document emerging …
Competing interests: In compliance with EBAC/EACCME guidelines, all authors participating in Education in Heart have disclosed potential conflicts of interest that might cause a bias in the article. Research grants: Hoffmann LaRoche, Boehringer Ingelheim, sanofi aventis, Portola. Consulting/Advising: Hoffmann LaRoche, sanofi Aventis, TargeGen.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.