Back

Differences in Treatment and Outcome of Patients with ST- Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) and Non-STEMI in Germany

Lange, S. A.; Engelbertz, C.; Makowski, L.; Dröge, P.; Ruhnke, T.; Günster, C.; Gerss, J.; Reinecke, H.; Koeppe, J.

2026-02-17 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.02.13.26346292 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAlthough ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) are very similar regarding pathophysiology and clinical treatments, especially NSTEMI comprises a much more heterogenic group of patients and underlying diseases. We therefore aimed to assess the treatments and outcomes of both entities in a large contemporary cohort. MethodsPatients with STEMI and NSTEMI between 01/2010 to 12/2018 were identified from the largest German Health Insurance (AOK, {approx}26 million members). Patient demographics, their hospital course, adherence to guideline-directed drug therapy and overall survival were assessed. ResultsIn total 544,529 patients (mean age 74, IQR 62-82), one third of whom had a STEMI. Chronic kidney disease, peripheral arterial disease, and heart failure were more common in patients with NSTEMI. Patients with STEMI were more likely to get coronary angiograms and percutaneous coronary interventions. Although STEMI more frequently led to cardiogenic shock, the rate of serious cardiac events was lower. Mortality was higher for STEMI only within the first 30 days, whereas long-term survival rates were better. The combination of statins, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors /angiotensin receptor blockers, beta blockers, and oral anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents was associated with higher overall survival in patients with STEMI (hazard ratio [HR] 0.20; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.18 - 0.24; p<0.001) or NSTEMI (HR 0.30; 95%CI 0.28 - 0.33; p<0.001). Nevertheless, the prescription rates decreased over time, particular in patients with NSTEMI. ConclusionClear differences between STEMI and NSTEMI were observed regarding short-and long-term survival. Guideline-recommended therapy improved long-term survival, but decreased during the follow-up period.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.3%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 12%
14.8%
3
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.6%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.0%
5
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 33%
3.8%
7
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
8
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
9
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
10
International Journal of Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
11
Atherosclerosis
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
12
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.9%
13
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
14
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
Cardiovascular Research
33 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
16
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
17
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
18
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
19
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
22
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.8%
23
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
24
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
25
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
27
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%