4.7 Article

Baseline troponin level: key to understanding the importance of post-PCI troponin elevations

Journal

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 27, Issue 9, Pages 1061-1069

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi760

Keywords

troponin T; CK-MB mass; baseline and peak biomarker values; PCI; coronary artery disease

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims The adverse prognostic significance of biomarker elevations after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is well established. However, often baseline troponin values are not included in the analysis or sensitive criteria are not employed. Accordingly, we assessed the timing and magnitude of post-PCI troponin T (cTnT) levels and their relationships to outcomes in patients with and without pre-PCI baseline cTnT elevations using a sensitive assay and sensitive cut-off values. Methods and results cTnT was measured at baseline (pre-PCI), 8 and 16 h post-PCI in 2352 patients. A cTnT elevation was defined as >= 0.03 ng/mL. No baseline cTnT elevations were detected in 1619 patients undergoing mostly (97%) non-urgent procedures (cTnT=0.01 +/- 0.002 ng/mL; mean +/- SD). 733 patients had baseline cTnT elevations. Only the baseline troponin value had prognostic importance. Patients with elevated cTnT baseline levels had a higher overall cumulative 12-month death/MI rate of 11.1% compared with those without elevated baseline levels of 4.7% (P < 0.05). Neither the timing nor the magnitude of the post-procedure cTnT elevations was predictive of long-term death/MI rates when baseline elevations were included in the analysis. Similar findings were observed for baseline creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) levels. Late increases in cTnT levels (16 h post-PCI) presaged in-hospital events only. Conclusion Long-term prognosis is most often related to the baseline pre-PCI troponin value and not the biomarker response to the PCI. These results support a re-evaluation of the use of biomarker data in relation to PCI.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available