4.5 Article

Cardiac troponin T levels are associated with poor short- and long-term prognosis in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema

Journal

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 143, Issue 5, Pages 814-820

Publisher

MOSBY, INC
DOI: 10.1067/mhj.2002.120152

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The clinical determinants of increased cardiac troponin T (cTnT) in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema are not well defined, and the ability of this marker to predict long-term mortality has not yet been documented. Methods Eighty-four patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema without acute myocardial infarction were prospectively enrolled. cTnT was measured in samples obtained 6 and 12 hours after admission. Results cTnT levels of 0.1 ng/mL or greater were found in 46 patients (55%). Thirty-two patients (38%) died during follow-up. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for cTnT was 0.70 and 0.69 at 6 and 12 hours (P = .47), and the cTnT cutoff value of 0.1 ng/mL was 66% and 69% sensitive and 63% and 71% specific, respectively, in predicting subsequent mortality. Patients were assigned to group 1 if they had cTnT lower than 0.1 ng/mL and to group 2 if they had cTnT levels of 0.1 ng/mL or greater. A history of coronary artery disease was present in 72% of group 2 versus 50% of group 1 patients (P = .04). Patients in group 2 were also older than those in group I (mean age, 68 years vs 61 years; P = .021). The 3-year survival in group 1 was 76% compared with 29% in group 2 (log-rank test, P < .001). In a Cox proportional hazards model, elevated cTnT emerged as the only prognostic marker of long-term mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 2.31; 95% CI, 1.011-5.280; P = .047). Conclusions A cTnT level of 0.1 ng/mL or greater was associated with poor long-term survival and emerged as a powerful independent predictor of mortality in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available