Skip to main content
Annals of Intensive Care
Download PDF

In-hospital outcomes after acute myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease in critically ill patients hospitalized for non-cardiac disease

Annals of Intensive Care volume 13, Article number: 87 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is one of the major cardiac complications in patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) for non-cardiac disease. A better knowledge of ischemic and bleeding risks in these patients is needed to identify those most likely to benefit from specific cardiac management. We therefore assessed the incidence and predictors of a composite outcome of severe ischemic event (AMI recurrence, ischemic stroke), major bleeding, or all-cause death in this setting.

Methods

In this multicenter retrospective study, all consecutive adult patients admitted for non-cardiac disease to four French university hospital ICUs between January 2012 and December 2018 who had an AMI with obstructive coronary artery disease (OCAD) during the ICU stay were considered for inclusion. AMI with OCAD was defined as an elevated cardiac troponin value associated with at least one sign (clinical, electrocardiographic, or echocardiographic) suggestive of myocardial ischemia and presence of OCAD on coronary angiography. The primary endpoint was in-hospital occurrence of the composite outcome.

Results

Ninety-six patients [median age 69 years, 22 women (23%), 59 with sepsis (61%), 35 with ST elevation (37%), median sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) of 8 on the day of AMI] were included. The median peak cardiac troponin value was 131 (IQR 44–303) times the upper reference limit. Dual antiplatelet, therapeutic anticoagulation, and early mechanical reperfusion therapies were administered in 61 (64%), 68 (71%), and 47 (49%) patients, respectively. The composite outcome occurred in 48 (50%) patients. Severe ischemic events occurred in 17 (18%) patients and major bleeding in 26 (27%) patients; 26 patients (27%) died in the hospital. AMI management was not significantly different in patients with and without the composite outcome. A history of arterial hypertension (HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.01–4.16) and high SOFA score at the time of AMI (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00–1.15) were independent risk factors for the composite outcome.

Conclusions

Patients who have an AMI with OCAD during an ICU stay for non-cardiac disease are at risk of a composite outcome of severe ischemia, major bleeding, and death. A history of arterial hypertension and high SOFA scores were independent hazards for poor prognosis.

Graphical Abstract

Background

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) affects 4% to 14% of patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) for non-cardiac disease [1,2,3] (vs. ≃2 per 1000 admissions for non-cardiac causes in general wards [4]) and is independently associated with increased mortality [1]. In this setting, myocardial ischemia caused by obstructive coronary artery disease (OCAD), designated as a type 1 myocardial infarction [5], is one of the main underlying mechanisms [6]. Decisions regarding use of reperfusion therapy by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in association with dual antiplatelet therapy [6, 7] should be based on the balance of benefit versus risk for each patient, including the risks of ischemia, bleeding, and death [8]. In these patients, inflammation, a prothrombotic state, and endothelial dysfunction [9,10,11,12,13] may increase the ischemic risk [14,15,16], while platelet disorders [17] and coagulopathy [18] may increase the risk of bleeding [19]. Thus, assessment of the clinical risk is challenging [20], which may explain, in part, why half of these patients do not receive standard of care management as defined in European guidelines [6, 7]. We therefore conducted a multicenter retrospective study in patients with AMI with OCAD during an ICU stay for non-cardiac disease, to assess the incidence and predictive factors of poor outcome, using a composite endpoint of severe ischemic event (AMI recurrence, ischemic stroke), major bleeding, or all-cause death.

Material and methods

Selection of patients

In this multicenter retrospective study in three medical ICUs and one mixed medical-surgical ICU of four university teaching hospitals (Paris, France), all consecutive adult patients who had an AMI with OCAD during their ICU stay between January 2012 and December 2018 were considered for inclusion. Diagnosis of AMI with OCAD was based on (i) an elevated cardiac troponin value greater than the 99th percentile of the upper reference level with an increase and/or decrease in troponin values (analytical characteristics of cardiac troponin assays in the different centers are provided in Additional file 1: Table S1) with at least one sign suggestive of myocardial ischemia (typical chest pain, electrocardiogram [ECG] changes, or significant left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction [LV ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤ 45%] on echocardiography [2]) [2], and (ii) a coronary angiography showing OCAD (detailed definition in Additional file 1: Table S2) [5]. Exclusion criteria were cardiac disease (myocardial infarction, myocarditis, cardiac rhythm disorders, cardiogenic shock, or cardiogenic pulmonary edema) as a principal diagnosis on ICU admission and cardiac surgery, PCI, or coronary artery bypass grafting within the month prior to ICU admission.

ICU patients who had coronary angiography were identified by the investigator of each participating center, either from hospital medical reports, using the function “research for file in which the word ‘coronary angiography’ occurs” of Microsoft Windows®, or through a search using the following International Classification of Diseases (10th revision) codes: I21 (‘AMI’), I22 (‘subsequent AMI’), R93.1 (‘abnormal findings on diagnostic imaging of heart and coronary circulation’), Z13.6 (‘special screening examination for cardiovascular disorders’), I25.1 (‘atherosclerotic heart disease’). The medical records (including clinical observations, hospitalization reports, as well as electrocardiogram, biological and radiological examinations) of each identified patient were reviewed by the investigators to first verify the inclusion criteria, and second to collect the data. The presence of typical chest pain up to 7 days prior to the day of troponin elevation was noted (it was considered not to be present in patients under sedation). All ECGs performed on the day of troponin elevation were systematically reviewed. This observational, non-interventional analysis of medical records was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the French Society of Intensive Care (CE SRLF 20-76). As per French law, no informed consent was required for this type of study.

Collection of data

Patient demographics, past medical history, prior antithrombotic treatments, admission category (medical, scheduled surgery, emergency surgery), the principal diagnosis, and the Simplified Acute Physiologic Score II (SAPSII [21]) were recorded on ICU admission. Sepsis and septic shock were defined in accordance with the Sepsis-3 definition [22], and sites of infection were recorded. At the onset of the AMI, the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) risk score [23], the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score [24], the presence of cardiogenic shock, routine blood test results, and details regarding the management of organ failure and of the AMI were collected. Early mechanical reperfusion therapy was defined as coronary reperfusion by PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery within the first 24 h for ST elevation AMI (STEMI), and within 72 h for non-ST elevation AMI [6, 7].

Outcomes

The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a composite clinical outcome, including a severe ischemic event (AMI recurrence, stroke), major bleeding (according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium, BARC [25]), or death from any cause from the day of AMI (day-1) until hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of individual components of the primary outcome from the day of AMI until hospital discharge (Detailed definitions in Additional file 1: Table S2) and were not mutually exclusive.

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables are given as numbers (percentages) and quantitative variables as medians (interquartile ranges [IQR]). Associations with the composite primary outcome were tested using standard Cox models. Potential predictive factors were chosen according to their clinical relevance and their statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05) in the primary outcome univariate analysis. To avoid overfitting, we considered that we could enter a maximum of four variables in our primary outcome model (in view of the 48 events observed) [26]. A multivariable model was built for the primary outcome only, as the number of events was judged too low to avoid overfitting for the other outcomes. Associations with secondary outcomes (individual components of the composite primary outcome) were tested using univariate cause-specific Fine-Gray models for the first occurrence of severe ischemic event or the first occurrence of major bleeding event (accounting for the competing risk of death), and by standard Cox models for all-cause in-hospital mortality. The proportional hazard assumption was assessed through inspection of Schoenfeld residuals. Sensitivity analyses accounting for time and center effect were performed. No power calculation was necessary in view of the methodology used. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated and are reported with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The level of significance was set a priori at 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed with R software 3.6.0 version for Mac (Foundation for statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

Population characteristics

During the 7-year study period, 637 adult patients with an AMI had coronary angiography (2.2% of the patients admitted, Fig. 1). Among this population, 96 patients (median age of 69 years [60–78]; 74 men and 22 women, 59 [61%] admitted for sepsis/septic shock) met the study inclusion criteria (Fig. 1, main characteristics in Table 1). The AMI occurred on the day of ICU admission in 83% of the patients (min–max: 0–10 days). On the day of the AMI, the median TIMI and SOFA scores were 4 [3–5] and 8 [3–11], respectively, and the median cardiac troponin peak value was 131 (44–303) times the upper reference limit (URL). Typical chest pain, ECG modifications, and significant LV systolic dysfunction were observed in 28 (29%), 87 (91%), and 50 (52%) patients, respectively (Table 2). Coronary angiography was performed a median (IQR) of 1 (0–6) day after AMI and revealed one vessel-disease, two vessel-disease, and three vessel-disease in 52 (54%), 18 (19%), and 20 (21%) patients, respectively (left main artery, n = 8; left anterior descending artery, n = 54; left circumflex artery, n = 44; right coronary artery, n = 52).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study flowchart. AMI: acute myocardial infarction; ICU: intensive care unit. a Within the first 24 h for ST elevation AMI and 72 h for non-ST elevation AMI [6, 7]

Full size image
Table 1 Baseline characteristics according to occurrence of composite outcome components
Full size table
Table 2 Symptoms, laboratory and electrocardiogram findings, and sequential organ failure assessment scores, on the day of the acute myocardial infarction according to occurrence of composite outcome components
Full size table

Management

On the day of the AMI, antiplatelet therapy, dual antiplatelet therapy, or therapeutic anticoagulation was administered in 95 (99%), 61 (63%), and 68 (71%) patients, respectively (Table 3). Early mechanical reperfusion therapy was performed in 47 (49%) patients (Fig. 1), including PCI in 45 patients (drug-eluting stent, n = 31; bare metal stent, n = 13; missing data, n = 1) and CABG in two patients. Delayed mechanical reperfusion therapy was performed in 27 (28%) patients, including PCI in 21 patients (drug-eluting stent, n = 14; bare metal stent, n = 7) and CABG in six patients. The reasons for delayed mechanical reperfusion were uncontrolled sepsis (n = 16), hemodynamic instability (n = 2), active bleeding (n = 3), triple vessel disease (n = 4), complex procedure (n = 1), and unknown (n = 1). Organ failure management on the day of AMI onset included catecholamines in 48 (51%) patients and invasive mechanical ventilation in 56 (58%, Table 3).

Table 3 Management of myocardial infarction and of organ dysfunction on the day of the myocardial infarction according to occurrence of composite outcome components
Full size table

Composite clinical outcome and associated patient factors

The composite clinical outcome occurred in 48 (50%) patients (cumulative incidence curve in Additional file 1: Fig. S1). Patients with a composite clinical outcome more frequently had a history of arterial hypertension (79% vs. 56%, p = 0.03) and diagnosis of abdominal disease on ICU admission (23% vs 2%, p = 0.005), higher SAPS II (50 [43–73] vs. 40 [27–49], p < 0.001), higher SOFA global and SOFA cardiovascular scores (respectively, 9 [5–11] vs. 4 [2–10], p = 0.004; 4 [0–4] vs. 0 [0–4], p = 0.016), and lower hematocrit levels (30 [26–35]% vs. 37 [32–43]%, p = 0.001) (Additional file 1, Tables S3 and S4). The occurrence of the composite clinical outcome was similar in patients with and without sepsis/septic shock (Additional file 1: Table S5). AMI management in terms of antithrombotic medication and early mechanical reperfusion was not significantly different between the groups with and without the composite clinical outcome, but a greater proportion of patients with the composite outcome received catecholamines and invasive mechanical ventilation on the day of AMI (Additional file 1: Table S6).

A history of arterial hypertension, diagnosis of abdominal disease on ICU admission, SOFA score, and peak cardiac troponin were entered in the multivariable model, and history of arterial hypertension (HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.01–4.16, p = 0.047) and high SOFA score (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00–1.15, p = 0.042) were identified as independently associated with an increased risk of the composite outcome (Table 4). There was no significant time (Additional file 1: Table S7) or center (Additional file 1: Table S8) effect on the occurrence of the composite outcome.

Table 4 Univariate and multivariable analyses of factors associated with in-hospital outcome a
Full size table

Components of the composite clinical outcome

A severe ischemic event occurred in 17 (18%) patients (median 5 [3–7] days from AMI onset), including 9 recurrent AMIs and 8 strokes. One severe ischemic event (recurrent AMI related to early stent thrombosis) was fatal. Baseline clinical (Table 1) and AMI characteristics (Table 2) were similar in patients with and without a severe ischemic event.

Major bleeding occurred in 26 (27%) patients (median 4 [3–13] days from AMI onset) including 40 major extracranial bleeding events (23 gastrointestinal, 1 hemoptysis, 1 epistaxis, 1 thigh hematoma, 5 urologic, 1 pericardial effusion, 8 surgical site) and 1 intracranial bleeding event; no episode of major bleeding was fatal. A blood transfusion (median number of red blood cell units 2 [1–5]) was required for 34 of the major bleeding events. The 41 major bleeding events were classified as follows: BARC 3a, n = 24; BARC 3b, n = 14; BARC 3c, n = 1; BARC 4, n = 2. Patients with a major bleeding event had more frequently been admitted to the ICU for abdominal disease, and had a lower hematocrit and less often received dual antiplatelet therapy on the day of AMI. Six patients had both a severe ischemic event and a major bleeding event.

Twenty-six (27%) patients died in the hospital. The causes of death were refractory cardiogenic shock (n = 7), cardiac arrest of cardiogenic origin (or suspected) (n = 5), multiple organ failure (n = 7), and end-of-life decision (n = 7). SAPS II, SOFA global, and SOFA cardiovascular scores were higher in non-survivors.

The occurrence of each component of the composite clinical outcome was similar in patients with and without sepsis or septic shock (Additional file 1: Table S5).

Discussion

In this retrospective multicenter study in patients with AMI with OCAD during an ICU stay for non-cardiac disease, the incidence of the composite in-hospital outcome, including severe ischemic event (18%), major bleeding (27%), and mortality (27%), was high (50%). A history of arterial hypertension and a high SOFA score were independently associated with a risk of poor outcome.

Ischemic risk

Our results confirm that risk of ischemia is a major concern in patients with an AMI during an ICU stay for non-cardiac disease (majority with sepsis). Smilowitz et al. reported that AMI was independently associated with increased mortality in a retrospective analysis of a large nationwide cohort of patients with sepsis [1]. The ischemic risk in this setting appears to be greater than that reported in patients with AMI in cardiology wards (< 5%) [27]. The pathophysiological mechanisms behind the increased ischemic risk are complex in this context. Myocardial infarction may be a marker of the severity of non-cardiac disease, such as septic shock, which itself is associated with a high thrombotic risk because of hemodynamic collapse, sepsis-induced coagulopathy with deregulated immunothrombosis, and endothelial dysfunction [28,29,30]. Several infectious agents and inflammatory diseases are associated with an increased risk of AMI, probably related to the overall burden of systemic inflammation [5, 31,32,33] that could lead to coronary plaque instability and thrombus formation. In an observational study, Del Pace et al. showed that occurrence of an infectious or inflammatory event may facilitate the development of coronary stent thrombosis [33]. In addition, tachycardia and blood pressure changes in critically ill patients can precipitate plaque rupture and coronary thrombosis [34]. Furthermore, the bioavailability of enteral drugs, such as antiplatelet agents, can be significantly altered in critically ill patients, leading to an increased risk of thrombosis [35, 36]. Finally, early invasive reperfusion was not performed in half our patients, leading to a potential increase in the risk of severe ischemic complications.

Bleeding risk

Episodes of major bleeding were also frequent, occurring in 27% of our patients. In medical ICU patients, Strauss et al. reported a similar incidence of major bleeding (20%) [19]. Similar to ischemic risk, bleeding risk in this setting appears to be greater than that reported in patients with AMI in cardiology wards (≃ 5%) [37]. The dysregulated infection-inflammation immune response may produce antithrombotic states with thrombocytopenia, decreased clotting factors, and increased fibrinolysis, which predispose to bleeding complications [38,39,40,41]. Several studies have developed predictive instruments for the estimation of bleeding risk in patients with AMI in cardiology wards [42]. Subherwal et al. reported that a lower baseline hematocrit was an independent predictor of bleeding events [42]; similarly, in our univariate analysis, patients with bleeding events had lower baseline hematocrit values. We found a counter-intuitive association between dual antiplatelet administration and a lower risk of bleeding events. This may be due to indication bias, or to a high alpha risk given the large number of statistical comparisons in this exploratory observational study.

Prediction of the composite clinical outcome

Our results are consistent with those from several studies in cardiology patients, which have reported that a history of arterial hypertension is associated with ischemic [23, 43] and bleeding [44] risk. However, no other factors commonly used to stratify cardiovascular risk in cardiology patients [43, 45], such as TIMI risk score, ECG abnormalities and baseline cardiovascular characteristics, were predictive of clinical outcome in our cohort. Thus, the approach used to estimate this risk in cardiology patients [43, 45] may not be relevant in patients admitted to the ICU for a non-cardiac condition. Several authors have reported that invasive reperfusion therapy is performed in only 30–50% of critically ill patients with AMI during an ICU stay for a non-cardiac cause [3, 36], similar to our findings. These observations suggest there is an urgent need for bedside risk stratification tools to determine which patients may benefit most from antithrombotic medications and early invasive reperfusion strategy.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. First, this was a retrospective study with inherently associated bias, some missing data, and possible associated errors in data abstraction. Second, all our statistical results should be interpreted with caution in this exploratory retrospective study because of (i) the large number of statistical comparisons and the not adjusted 95% confidence intervals and p-values for multiple testing resulting in high alpha risk, and (ii) the relatively small number of patients limited power in all analyses. Third, severe ischemic events (or major bleeding events) may have been more relevant as a primary outcome, but we did not consider this option, because of their low incidence. Instead, we used a composite outcome that reflects the net clinical benefit of antithrombotic medication and invasive reperfusion strategy. Fourth, we did not assess the relationship between AMI and the occurrence of the composite outcome. Fifth, the study was observational, leading to potential indication biases. Specific treatments for AMI, including antithrombotic therapy and reperfusion therapy, may have influenced the occurrence of adverse events. Sixth, patients without coronary angiography to confirm AMI were not included, leading to potential selection bias. Indeed, many coronary angiographies are delayed or not performed in the acute phase of septic shock because of fear of stent thrombosis due to the pro-thrombotic state of the patients. Seventh, as the study was conducted in France, our findings may not be applicable elsewhere. Finally, the last patient was included in December 2018. However, to the best of our knowledge, no trial results or guidelines have been published since then that could have modified the usual management of these patients.

Conclusion

Patients having an AMI with OCAD during an ICU stay for non-cardiac disease are at high risk of poor clinical outcome, including development of severe ischemic events or major bleeding, and death. A history of arterial hypertension and a high SOFA score at the time of the AMI were the only factors associated with occurrence of the composite outcome, albeit the relatively small sample size. Further studies are needed to determine how to better stratify bedside cardiovascular risk, a preliminary requirement for establishing an appropriate anti-thrombotic and coronary reperfusion strategy in this context.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AMI:

Acute myocardial infarction

ECG:

Electrocardiogram

ICU:

Intensive care unit

IQR:

Interquartile range

LVEF:

Left ventricular ejection fraction

OCAD:

Obstructive coronary artery disease

PCI:

Percutaneous coronary intervention

SAPS II:

Simplified Acute Physiology Score II

SOFA:

Sequential Organ Failure Assessment

STEMI:

ST elevation myocardial infarction

URL:

Upper reference limit

References

  1. Smilowitz NR, Gupta N, Guo Y, Bangalore S. Comparison of outcomes of patients with sepsis with versus without acute myocardial infarction and comparison of invasive versus noninvasive management of the patients with infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117:1065–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Desnos C, Ederhy S, Belnou P, Lapidus N, Lefevre G, Voiriot G, et al. Prognostic performance of GRACE and TIMI risk scores in critically ill patients with sepsis and a concomitant myocardial infarction. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2022;115:359–68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Allou N, Brulliard C, Valance D, Esteve JB, Martinet O, Corradi L, et al. Obstructive coronary artery disease in patients hospitalized for severe sepsis or septic shock with concomitant acute myocardial infarction. J Crit Care. 2016;32:159–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dai X, Bumgarner J, Spangler A, Meredith D, Smith SC, Stouffer GA. Acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction in patients hospitalized for noncardiac conditions. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2: e000004.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Chaitman BR, Bax JJ, Morrow DA, et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). Circulation. 2018;138:e618–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Collet J-P, Thiele H, Barbato E, Barthélémy O, Bauersachs J, Bhatt DL, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:1289–367.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Bueno H, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: the Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2018;39:119–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bosco E, Hsueh L, McConeghy KW, Gravenstein S, Saade E. Major adverse cardiovascular event definitions used in observational analysis of administrative databases: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21:241.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Angus DC, van der Poll T. Severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:840–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Levi M, van der Poll T. Inflammation and coagulation. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:S26-34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Radomski MW, Moncada S. The biological and pharmacological role of nitric oxide in platelet function. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1993;344:251–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Quyyumi AA, Dakak N, Andrews NP, Husain S, Arora S, Gilligan DM, et al. Nitric oxide activity in the human coronary circulation. Impact of risk factors for coronary atherosclerosis. J Clin Invest. 1995;95:1747–55.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson TJ. Assessment and treatment of endothelial dysfunction in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:631–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Inoue T, Croce K, Morooka T, Sakuma M, Node K, Simon DI. Vascular inflammation and repair: implications for re-endothelialization, restenosis, and stent thrombosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:1057–66.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Koskinas KC, Chatzizisis YS, Antoniadis AP, Giannoglou GD. Role of endothelial shear stress in stent restenosis and thrombosis: pathophysiologic mechanisms and implications for clinical translation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1337–49.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ollivier V, Roques C, Receveur N, Gratz M, Feldman L, Letourneur D, et al. Bioreactivity of stent material: activation of platelets, coagulation, leukocytes and endothelial cell dysfunction in vitro. Platelets. 2017;28:529–39.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rice TW, Wheeler AP. Coagulopathy in critically ill patients: part 1: platelet disorders. Chest. 2009;136:1622–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wheeler AP, Rice TW. Coagulopathy in critically ill patients: part 2-soluble clotting factors and hemostatic testing. Chest. 2010;137:185–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Strauss R, Wehler M, Mehler K, Kreutzer D, Koebnick C, Hahn EG. Thrombocytopenia in patients in the medical intensive care unit: bleeding prevalence, transfusion requirements, and outcome. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:1765–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2551–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F. A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA. 1993;270:2957–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315:801–10.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Antman EM, Cohen M, Bernink PJ, McCabe CH, Horacek T, Papuchis G, et al. The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: a method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making. JAMA. 2000;284:835–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, De Mendonça A, Bruining H, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22:707–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Vranckx P, White HD, Huang Z, Mahaffey KW, Armstrong PW, Van de Werf F, et al. Validation of BARC bleeding criteria in patients with acute coronary syndromes: the TRACER Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:2135–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1373–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tardif J-C, Kouz S, Waters DD, Bertrand OF, Diaz R, Maggioni AP, et al. Efficacy and safety of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2497–505.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kreutz RP, Bliden KP, Tantry US, Gurbel PA. Viral respiratory tract infections increase platelet reactivity and activation: an explanation for the higher rates of myocardial infarction and stroke during viral illness. J Thromb Haemost JTH. 2005;3:2108–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zeerleder S, Hack CE, Wuillemin WA. Disseminated intravascular coagulation in sepsis. Chest. 2005;128:2864–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Helms J, Iba T, Connors JM, Gando S, Levi M, Meziani F, et al. How to manage coagulopathies in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2023;49:273–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Meier CR, Jick SS, Derby LE, Vasilakis C, Jick H. Acute respiratory-tract infections and risk of first-time acute myocardial infarction. Lancet Lond Engl. 1998;351:1467–71.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Tsakraklides VG, Blieden LC, Edwards JE. Coronary atherosclerosis and myocardial infarction associated with systemic lupus erythematosus. Am Heart J. 1974;87:637–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Del Pace S, Boddi M, Rasoini R, Micheli S, Alderighi C, Caciolli S, et al. Acute infection-inflammation and coronary stent thrombosis: an observational study. Intern Emerg Med. 2010;5:121–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Chaitman BR, Bax JJ, Morrow DA, et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). Kardiol Pol. 2018;76:1383–415.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Schoergenhofer C, Hobl E-L, Schwameis M, Gelbenegger G, Staudinger T, Heinz G, et al. Acetylsalicylic acid in critically ill patients: a cross-sectional and a randomized trial. Eur J Clin Invest. 2017;47:504–12.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Roberts DJ, Hall RI. Drug absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion considerations in critically ill adults. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2013;9:1067–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Shah T, Haimi I, Yang Y, Gaston S, Taoutel R, Mehta S, et al. Meta-analysis of gender disparities in in-hospital care and outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2021;147:23–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Semeraro N, Ammollo CT, Semeraro F, Colucci M. Coagulopathy of acute sepsis. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2015;41:650–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Baughman RP, Lower EE, Flessa HC, Tollerud DJ. Thrombocytopenia in the intensive care unit. Chest. 1993;104:1243–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Helling H, Stephan B, Pindur G. Coagulation and complement system in critically ill patients. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2015;61:185–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gulati D, Novak A, Stanworth SJ. Common haemostasis issues in major bleeding and critical illness. Clin Med Lond Engl. 2018;18:320–3.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Subherwal S, Bach RG, Chen AY, Gage BF, Rao SV, Newby LK, et al. Baseline risk of major bleeding in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines) Bleeding Score. Circulation. 2009;119:1873–82.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Morrow DA, Antman EM, Charlesworth A, Cairns R, Murphy SA, de Lemos JA, et al. TIMI risk score for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A convenient, bedside, clinical score for risk assessment at presentation: An intravenous nPA for treatment of infarcting myocardium early II trial substudy. Circulation. 2000;102:2031–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Samsky MD, Morrow DA, Proudfoot AG, Hochman JS, Thiele H, Rao SV. Cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: a review. JAMA. 2021;326:1840–50.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Fox KAA, Dabbous OH, Goldberg RJ, Pieper KS, Eagle KA, Van de Werf F, et al. Prediction of risk of death and myocardial infarction in the six months after presentation with acute coronary syndrome: prospective multinational observational study (GRACE). BMJ. 2006;333:1091.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

No source of funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service de Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Département Médico-Universitaire APPROCHES, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

    Morgan Roué, Cyrielle Desnos, Muriel Fartoukh & Vincent Labbé

  2. Sorbonne Université, Public Health Department, Saint Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France

    Alexis F. Guédon & Nathanaël Lapidus

  3. Service de Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor-Albert Chenevier, Département Médico-Universitaire Médecine, AP-HP, Créteil, France

    Keyvan Razazi & Armand Mekontso Dessap

  4. Université Paris Est, Groupe de Recherche Clinique GR05 CARMAS, Institut Mondor de Recherche Biomédicale, INSERM, Créteil, France

    Keyvan Razazi, Armand Mekontso Dessap, Muriel Fartoukh & Vincent Labbé

  5. Service de Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, AP-HP, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

    Geoffroy Hariri

  6. Service de Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Hôpital La Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

    Elise Morawiec

  7. Department of Cardiology, UNICO Cardio-Oncology Program, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, AP-HP, Paris, France

    Stéphane Ederhy & Ariel Cohen

  8. INSERM U 856, Paris, France

    Stéphane Ederhy & Ariel Cohen

  9. Sorbonne Université, UMR-S ICAN 1166, Paris, France

    Ariel Cohen

  10. Service des Soins Intensifs, Hôpital Universitaire Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    Vincent Labbé

  11. Sorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d’Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique IPLESP, AP-HP, Paris, France

    Alexis F. Guédon & Nathanaël Lapidus

Authors
  1. Morgan Roué
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexis F. Guédon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nathanaël Lapidus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Keyvan Razazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Geoffroy Hariri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elise Morawiec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Cyrielle Desnos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Stéphane Ederhy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ariel Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Armand Mekontso Dessap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Muriel Fartoukh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Vincent Labbé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MR, MF and VL contributed to study conception and design. MR, CD, KR, EM, GH, and VL participated in acquiring the data. MR, AG, NL, SE, AR MF and VL analyzed and interpreted the study data. MR and VL drafted the manuscript. All authors revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent Labbé.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the French Intensive Care Society (SRLF 20-76) as a component of standard of care. Patient consent was waived according to French Law.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Analytical characteristics of cardiac troponin assays in the different centers. Table S2. Definitions of acute myocardial infarction, severe ischemic events, and major bleeding events. Table S3. Baseline patient characteristics according to occurrence of the composite outcome. Table S4. Symptoms, laboratory and electrocardiogram findings, and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores, on the day of the acute myocardial infarction according to occurrence of the composite outcome. Table S5. Outcomes according to the intensive care unit diagnosis of sepsis/ septic shock. Table S6. Management of myocardial infarction and of organ dysfunction on the day of the acute myocardial infarction according to the occurrence of the composite outcome. Table S7. Sensitivity analysis of factors associated with occurrence of composite outcomes accounting for time effect. Table S8. Sensitivity analysis of factors associated with occurrence of composite outcome accounting for center effect: mixed effects Cox model with center as random effect. Figure S1. Composite Clinical Outcome. (A) Cumulative composite clinical outcome curve (including any severe ischemic event, major bleeding and all-cause death) from the day of AMI until hospital discharge. (B) Cumulative mortality curve from the day of AMI until hospital discharge. (C) Cumulative severe ischemic events curve from the day of AMI until hospital discharge. (D) Cumulative major bleedings curve from the day of AMI until hospital discharge.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roué, M., Guédon, A.F., Lapidus, N. et al. In-hospital outcomes after acute myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease in critically ill patients hospitalized for non-cardiac disease. Ann. Intensive Care 13, 87 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-023-01188-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-023-01188-9

Keywords