Original Research

Characteristics and Outcomes of MI with Non-obstructive Coronary Arteries in a South-east Asian Cohort

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare: ReprintsWarehouse@springernature.com.

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit Copyright.com to start a request.

For author reprints, please email rob.barclay@radcliffe-group.com.
Information image
Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating


Background: MI with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is caused by a heterogenous group of conditions with clinically significant sequelae. Aim: This study aimed to compare the clinical characteristics and prognosis of MINOCA with MI with obstructive coronary artery disease (MICAD). Methods: Data on patients with a first presentation of MI between 2011 and 2014 were extracted from the Singapore Cardiac Longitudinal Outcomes Database and patients were classified as having either MINOCA or MICAD. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality (ACM) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite of ACM, recurrent MI, heart failure hospitalisation and stroke. Results: Of the 4,124 patients who were included in this study, 159 (3.9%) were diagnosed with MINOCA. They were more likely to be women, present with a non-ST-elevation MI, have a higher left ventricular ejection fraction and less likely to have diabetes, previous stroke or smoking history. Over a mean follow-up duration of 4.5 years, MINOCA patients had a lower incidence of ACM (10.1% versus 16.5%) and MACE (20.8% versus 35.5%) compared with MICAD. On multivariable analysis, patients with MINOCA had a lower risk of ACM (HR 0.42; 95% CI [0.21–0.82]) and MACE (HR 0.42; 95% CI [0.26–0.69]). Within the MINOCA group, older age, higher creatinine, a ST-elevation MI presentation, and the absence of antiplatelet use predicted ACM and MACE. Conclusion: While patients with MINOCA had better clinical outcomes compared with MICAD patients, MINOCA is not a benign entity, with one in five patients experiencing an adverse cardiovascular event in the long term.

Disclosure:KKY is editor-in-chief and JY is an associate editor of Journal of Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology; this did not influence peer review. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.



Published online:

Data Availability Statement:

Data Availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Ethics Approval Statement:

Ethical Approval: This study was carried out in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki).

Acknowledgements:The authors thank the SingCLOUD Publication Committee and chairperson Prof Mark Arthur Richards of National University Hospital (Singapore) for reviewing this article. This study was supported by the SingCLOUD Governance Committee, which includes representatives from the Ministry of Health, National Heart Centre Singapore, National University Hospital (Singapore), Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore General Hospital, Changi General Hospital, Sengkang General Hospital, Ng Teng Feng General Hospital, Alexandra Hospital, SingHealth Polyclinics, National Healthcare Group Polyclinics and National University Polyclinics.

Correspondence Details:Khung Keong Yeo, National Heart Centre Singapore, 5 Hospital Drive, Singapore 169609. E: yeo.khung.keong@singhealth.com.sg

Open Access:

This work is open access under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License which allows users to copy, redistribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is cited correctly.

MI with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is an increasingly recognised entity that occurs in 6% of all patients diagnosed with acute MI.1 The Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction Expert Consensus Document defines MINOCA as the absence of ≥50% diameter stenosis in a major epicardial coronary vessel identified on coronary angiography.2 Nevertheless, MINOCA should only be considered a working diagnosis and further evaluation should be undertaken to identify the underlying aetiology.3,4

Two meta-analyses on the use of cardiac MRI (CMR) in MINOCA identify myocarditis and true MI as the two most common causes, accounting for one-third and one-fifth of all cases, respectively.1,5 Other aetiologies include takotsubo cardiomyopathy and coronary vasospasm, although no diagnosis is found in up to one-quarter of patients with MINOCA.

Existing literature on MINOCA is largely focused on Western populations. When compared with MI with obstructive coronary artery disease (MICAD), patients with MINOCA are more likely to be women, younger and have fewer traditional cardiovascular risk factors, such as diabetes and hypertension.3 The prognosis of MINOCA is generally more favourable than MICAD, although some studies have demonstrated similar if not poorer outcomes.1,6–15 Moreover, outcomes vary depending on the underlying cause of MINOCA. Dastidar et al. found that cardiomyopathies have the poorest prognosis, with a mortality rate of 15% at 3.5 years, followed by true MI (4%) and myocarditis (2%).16

Baseline Characteristics and Medications at Discharge

Article image

Previous studies evaluating the prognostic benefit of medical therapy support the use of renin–angiotensin system inhibitors (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers), statins and β-blockers in MINOCA patients. In contrast, antiplatelet therapy has not been found to confer a protective effect against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).16–22

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of MINOCA and MICAD patients in Singapore.


Study Protocol and Population

The Singapore Cardiovascular Longitudinal Outcomes Database (SingCLOUD) is an integrated national registry of adult patients with cardiovascular disease on follow up with public hospitals and outpatient clinics.23 Patients are identified using the Singapore Cardiac Data Bank, a quality improvement database tracking cardiac interventions and surgery, and heart failure admissions in public hospitals; and discharge diagnoses associated with cardiovascular disease (e.g. MI, acute coronary syndrome) or heart failure based on ICD coding.

Clinical, laboratory, procedural, prescription, outcomes, administrative and financial data are obtained via the Singapore Cardiac Data Bank, participating public healthcare institutions and the Ministry of Health. Data from these sources flow through a Ministry of Health data grid comprising of six data warehouses prior to entering SingCLOUD.

Data collection for this study was performed as part of the approved SingCLOUD protocol (NCT03760705). Baseline data, such as patient characteristics, medical history, laboratory results, electrocardiogram at presentation and medications prescribed at discharge, were obtained from the database.

Comparison of Outcomes Between MINOCA and MICAD

Article image

This study was conducted in accordance with the standards set forth by the National Medical Research Council Institutional Review Boards and Declaration of Helsinki.

We identified 4,124 patients with a first presentation of acute MI who underwent coronary angiography between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2014. Patients were classified into two groups: MICAD, defined as the presence of ≥50% stenosis in a major epicardial vessel; and MINOCA, defined as <50% stenosis. This was based on the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction Expert Consensus Document.2


Follow-up data were collected up until 31 December 2017 over a mean duration of 4.5 years. The primary endpoints for this study were all-cause mortality and MACE defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, hospitalisation for heart failure and ischaemic stroke.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables are presented as the mean ± standard deviation and compared using the independent samples t-test, while categorical variables are expressed as absolute numbers and frequencies in percentages, and compared using the χ-squared test. The cumulative survival rate was analysed using the Kaplan–Meier estimator and the log-rank test was used to compare outcomes in MINOCA and MICAD patients. The multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the impact of various predictors on the primary endpoints and the corresponding HRs and 95% CI were reported. A p-value of <0.05 was significant. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 13.1 (StataCorp).


The baseline characteristics of the 4,124 patients included in this study are shown in Table 1. The mean age was 60 years and 81.2% were men. The majority of patients were Chinese (62.3%) followed by Malay (19.1%) and Indian (13.5%), which is consistent with the demographics of Singapore. A total of 159 (3.9%) patients had a diagnosis of MINOCA. Compared with MICAD patients they were more likely be to be women, present with a non-ST-elevation MI, have a higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and less likely to have diabetes, previous ischaemic stroke or smoking history. There were no significant differences in the ethnic composition of the two groups. In terms of medications, MICAD patients were more frequently prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (67.8% versus 49.1%, p<0.0001), β-blockers (82.2% versus 53.5%, p<0.0001) and antiplatelet therapy (91.9% versus 84.9%, p=0.002). The use of statins (90.4% versus 86.2%, p=0.078) was similar in both groups.

Cumulative Incidence of Primary Outcomes in MINOCA

Article image

Event Rates and Outcomes

Patients diagnosed with MINOCA experienced a lower incidence of all-cause mortality (10.1% versus 16.5%, p=0.030), overall MACE (20.8% versus 35.5%, p<0.0001), recurrent MI (6.9% versus 17.0%, p=0.001) and hospitalisation for heart failure (3.8% versus 10.1%, p=0.009) compared with MICAD patients over the follow-up period. Using multivariable adjustment, MINOCA patients were at significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.42; 95% CI [0.21–0.82]; p=0.011), MACE (HR 0.42; 95% CI [0.26–0.69]; p=0.001) and recurrent MI (HR 0.35; 95% CI [0.15–0.85]; p=0.021; Table 2). Kaplan–Meier analysis also showed poorer outcomes in the MICAD group (Figure 1).

Independent Predictors of All-Cause Mortality in Patients with MINOCA

Article image

Independent Predictors of Outcomes in MINOCA

Older age, higher creatinine levels and ST-elevation MI at presentation were identified as independent predictors of all-cause death and MACE using multivariable Cox regression analysis. In addition, the use of antiplatelets (aspirin and/or P2Y12 inhibitors) was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.27; 95% CI [0.08–0.90]; p=0.033).

Sex, ethnicity, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, smoking status, LVEF, renin–angiotensin inhibitors, β-blockers and statins did not have a significant impact on the primary endpoints. These results are displayed in Tables 3 and 4.

Independent Predictors of Outcomes in MICAD

Supplementary Material Tables 1 and 2 show the independent predictors in MICAD of all-cause mortality and MACE, respectively. On multivariate analysis, older age, hypertension, diabetes, higher creatinine levels, LVEF, statins and antiplatelet use were associated with an increased risk of all-cause death and MACE. The use of renin–angiotensin inhibitors reduced the risk of all-cause mortality, while male sex and ethnicity were independent predictors of MACE.


In this nationwide multicentre observational study conducted over a mean follow-up duration of 4.5 years, the prevalence of MINOCA among MI patients was about 4%. Patients with MINOCA had a lesser burden of cardiovascular risk factors and experienced better outcomes than MICAD patients.

The prevalence of MINOCA among patients diagnosed with MI has been estimated to be 6%, which is comparable to the prevalence of 3.9% observed in our cohort.1 Previous studies have shown that MINOCA is associated with female sex, a non-ST-elevation MI presentation, lower rates of smoking and lower prevalence of other traditional cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, dyslipidaemia and diabetes.4 MINOCA patients are also more likely to have a higher post-MI LVEF.16,18 The baseline characteristics of patients with MINOCA in this study were largely consistent with existing literature. Compared with MICAD patients, they were more likely to be female, present with a non-ST-elevation MI, have a higher LVEF and lower rates of diabetes, prior ischaemic stroke and smoking. There were no intergroup differences in ethnic composition.

It is generally accepted that patients with MINOCA have a better prognosis than MICAD patients.1,6–10 A large Medicare study involving more than 276,522 patients found that the rates of all-cause mortality, MACE and rehospitalisation for MI and heart failure at 12 months were lower in MINOCA patients than in MICAD patients, while rehospitalisation for stroke was similar in both groups.11 MINOCA patients in the study also had a 43% lower risk of MACE over 1 year. This is consistent with the results of our study, with MINOCA patients having a lower incidence and risk of all-cause mortality, MACE and recurrent MI. This contrasts with some studies that have reported that MINOCA patients experience similar if not poorer outcomes when compared with patients with MICAD.12–16 This discrepancy likely reflects the heterogeneity of MINOCA, the small (and therefore potentially non-representative) sample size of some previous series, and the influence of variation in underlying aetiologies ranging from true MI and myocarditis to takotsubo cardiomyopathy and coronary vasospasm.1,5 Regardless, the event rate in this group of patients is not insignificant and highlights the importance of secondary prevention.

Patients diagnosed with MINOCA represent an undertreated population, and there are currently no completed randomised controlled trials to date that have investigated secondary prevention medical therapy in MINOCA. Recruitment of adequate sample sizes for controlled trials obviously presents a major challenge. The recent 2020 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend performing a CMR in all patients with MINOCA to determine the underlying aetiology and to institute treatment according to the disease-specific guidelines.24 For patients without an established underlying cause, the guidelines recommend treating as per the secondary prevention guidelines for atherosclerotic disease.

Independent Predictors of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients with MICAD

Article image

However, the management of MINOCA varies widely in clinical practice for various reasons, including accessibility to CMR. It is not uncommon for some physicians to prescribe the same combination of drugs used in atherosclerotic MI for all patients with MINOCA without prior evaluation with CMR. These medications are primarily aimed at plaque stabilisation, reducing atherosclerotic progression and improving endothelial function.25,26 However, MINOCA represents a diverse group of conditions and involves varying pathophysiological processes besides atherosclerosis.1 This challenges the therapeutic basis of using standard MICAD treatment in all MINOCA patients.

Similar to our cohort, prior studies have shown that MINOCA patients were less frequently started on conventional secondary prevention treatments, such as renin–angiotensin system inhibitors, β-blockers and antiplatelets.8,16,18 Several observational studies have suggested a beneficial effect of renin–angiotensin system inhibitors, statins and β-blockers on both short- and long-term outcomes when used in MINOCA patients.16,18,19,22,23 However, these medications did not appear to have a significant prognostic benefit when used in MINOCA patients in our cohort. In contrast, and as expected, renin–angiotensin inhibitors and statins were associated with improved outcomes in our MICAD cohort. Interestingly, the use of antiplatelets in our MINOCA cohort was independently associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality. This stands in contrast with existing literature and may reflect the aetiological heterogeneity of MINOCA.

The ongoing MINOCA-BAT trial is a randomised multinational study investigating the use of β-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers in MINOCA patients, and represents a crucial first step towards establishing guidelines for secondary prevention in MINOCA (NCT03686696).27 Future trials should also aim to individually identify the underlying aetiology, so as to facilitate tailored medical therapy for each specific condition.

Study Limitations

The limitations of this study are its observational methodology and the small sample size of MINOCA patients, which may not be powered to study the impact of medications on outcomes. In addition, the various exact underlying aetiologies of MINOCA were not established due to a lack of further cardiac evaluation with CMR and other modalities.


While patients with MINOCA had better clinical outcomes compared with MICAD patients, MINOCA is not a benign entity, with about one in five patients experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event in the long term.

Click here to view Supplementary Material.

Clinical Perspective

  • Patients with MINOCA have fewer cardiovascular risk factors and experience better outcomes compared with MICAD patients.
  • MINOCA is not a benign entity and is associated with significant adverse cardiovascular events.
  • Future studies on MINOCA should incorporate investigations to determine the underlying aetiology and evaluate the impact of medical therapy on each specific condition.


  1. Pasupathy S, Air T, Dreyer R, et al. Systematic review of patients presenting with suspected myocardial infarction and nonobstructive coronary arteries. Circulation 2015;131:861–70.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Thygesen K, Alpert J, Jaffe A, et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;72:2231–64.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Agewall S, Beltrame J, Reynolds H, et al. ESC working group position paper on myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries. Eur Heart J 2016;38:143–53.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Tamis-Holland J, Jneid H, Reynolds H, et al. Contemporary diagnosis and management of patients with myocardial infarction in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2019;139:e891–908.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Tornvall P, Gerbaud E, Behaghel A, et al. Myocarditis or “true” infarction by cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with a clinical diagnosis of myocardial infarction without obstructive coronary disease: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Atherosclerosis 2015;241:87–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Smilowitz N, Mahajan A, Roe M, et al. Mortality of myocardial infarction by sex, age, and obstructive coronary artery disease status in the ACTION Registry-GWTG (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With the Guidelines). Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2017;10:e003443.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Larsen A, Nilsen D, Yu J, et al. Long-term prognosis of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with no significant coronary artery disease (from the HORIZONS-AMI trial). Am J Cardiol 2013;111:643–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Pizzi C, Xhyheri B, Costa G, et al. Nonobstructive versus obstructive coronary artery disease in acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 2016;5:e004185.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Barr P, Harrison W, Smyth D, et al. Myocardial infarction without obstructive coronary artery disease is not a benign condition (ANZACS-QI 10). Heart Lung Circ 2018;27:165–74.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Patel M, Chen A, Peterson E, et al. Prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and insignificant coronary artery disease: Results from the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE) initiative. Am Heart J 2006;152:641–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Dreyer R, Tavella R, Curtis J, et al. Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries as compared with myocardial infarction and obstructive coronary disease: outcomes in a Medicare population. Eur Heart J 2020;41:870–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Safdar B, Spatz E, Dreyer R, et al. Presentation, clinical profile, and prognosis of young patients with myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA): results from the VIRGO study. J Am Heart Assoc 2018;7:e009174.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Kang W, Jeong M, Ahn Y, et al. Are patients with angiographically near-normal coronary arteries who present as acute myocardial infarction actually safe? Int J Cardiol 2011;146:207–12.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Planer D, Mehran R, Ohman E, et al. Prognosis of patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and nonobstructive coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:285–93.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Choo E, Chang K, Lee K, et al. Prognosis and predictors of mortality in patients suffering myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries. J Am Heart Assoc 2019;8:e011990.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Dastidar A, Baritussio A, De Garate E, et al. Prognostic role of cardiac MRI and conventional risk factors in myocardial infarction with nonobstructed coronary arteries. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;10:1199–210.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Paolisso P, Bergamaschi L, Saturi G, et al. Secondary prevention medical therapy and outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary artery disease. Front Pharmacol 2019;10:1606.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Manfrini O, Morrell C, Das R, et al. Effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta blockers on clinical outcomes in patients with and without coronary artery obstructions at angiography (from a register-based cohort study on acute coronary syndromes). Am J Cardiol 2014;113:1628–33.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Kovach C, Hebbe A, O’Donnell C, et al. Comparison of patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease with versus without myocardial infarction (from the VA Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking [CART] program). Am J Cardiol 2021;146:1–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Abdu F, Liu L, Mohammed A, et al. Effect of secondary prevention medication on the prognosis in patients with myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2020;76:678–83.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Lindahl B, Baron T, Erlinge D, et al. Medical therapy for secondary prevention and long-term outcome in patients with myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary artery disease. Circulation 2017;135:1481–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Ciliberti G, Verdoia M, Merlo M, et al. Pharmacological therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with myocardial infarction with non-obstructed coronary arteries (MINOCA): insights from a multicentre national registry. Int J Cardiol 2021;327:9–14.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Yeo KK, Ong H, Chua T, et al. Building a longitudinal national integrated cardiovascular database - lessons learnt from SingCLOUD. Circ Rep 2020;2:33–43.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Collet J, Thiele H, Barbato E, 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.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Calabrò P, Yeh E. The pleiotropic effects of statins. Curr Opin Cardiol 2005;20:541–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Werner C, Baumhäkel M, Teo K, et al. RAS blockade with ARB and ACE inhibitors: current perspective on rationale and patient selection. Clin Res Cardiol 2008;97:418–31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Nordenskjöld A, Agewall S, Atar D, et al. Randomized evaluation of beta blocker and ACE-inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker treatment in patients with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA-BAT): rationale and design. Am Heart J 2021;231:96–104.
    Crossref | PubMed