Why the Term MINOCA Does Not Provide Conceptual Clarity for Actionable Decision-Making in Patients with Myocardial Infarction with No Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

When acute myocardial injury is found in a clinical setting suggestive of myocardial ischemia, the event is labeled as acute myocardial infarction (MI), and the absence of ≥50% coronary stenosis at angiography or greater leads to the working diagnosis of myocardial infarction with non-obstructed coronary arteries (MINOCA). Determining the mechanism of MINOCA and excluding other possible causes for cardiac troponin elevation has notable implications for tailoring secondary prevention measures aimed at improving the overall prognosis of acute MI. The aim of this review is to increase the awareness that establishing the underlying cause of a MINOCA is possible in the vast majority of cases, and that the proper classification of any MI should be pursued. The initial diagnosis of MINOCA can be confirmed or ruled out based on the results of subsequent investigations. Indeed, a comprehensive clinical evaluation at the time of presentation, followed by a dedicated diagnostic work-up, might lead to the identification of the pathophysiologic abnormality leading to MI in almost all cases initially labeled as MINOCA. When a specific cause of acute MI is identified, cardiologists are urged to transition from the “all-inclusive” term “MINOCA” to the proper classification of any MI, as evidence now exists that MINOCA does not provide conceptual clarity for actionable decision-making in MI with angiographically normal coronary arteries.