4.7 Article

Predicting Major Adverse Events in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.06.025

关键词

acute myocardial infarction; clinical assessment; electrocardiography; high-sensitivity cardiac troponin; major adverse cardiac events

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [P300PB-167803_1, P400PM_180828, PASMP3-136995]
  2. Swiss Heart Foundation
  3. European Union
  4. Cardiovascular Research Foundation Basel
  5. University Hospital Basel
  6. Abbott
  7. Beckman Coulter
  8. Biomerieux
  9. BRAHMS
  10. Roche
  11. Nanosphere
  12. Siemens
  13. Ortho Diagnostics
  14. Singulex
  15. University of Basel
  16. Division of Internal Medicine
  17. Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences
  18. Gottfried and Julia Bangerter-Rhyner-Foundation
  19. Swiss Society of Cardiology
  20. Cardiovascular Research Foundation
  21. Stiftung fur Herzschrittmacher und Elektrophysiologie
  22. Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft Basel
  23. Roche Diagnostics
  24. FAPESP (Foundation for Research Support of the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil)
  25. Bangerter Foundation [YTCR 23/17]
  26. Spanish Ministry of Health
  27. FEDER
  28. Mapfre
  29. Novartis
  30. Bayer
  31. MSD
  32. Orion-Pharma
  33. Goldschmidt-Jacobson-Foundation
  34. Professor Max Cloetta Foundation
  35. Uniscientia Foundation Vaduz
  36. Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Basel
  37. KTI
  38. Stiftung fur kardiovaskulare Forschung Basel
  39. Indorsia
  40. Ortho Clinical Diagnostics
  41. Quidel
  42. Sphingotec
  43. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [P400PM_180828] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Early and accurate detection of short-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is an unmet clinical need. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that adding clinical judgment and electrocardiogram findings to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) measurement at presentation and after 1 h (ESC hs-cTn 0/1 h algorithm) would further improve its performance to predict MACE. METHODS Patients presenting to an emergency department with suspected AMI were enrolled in a prospective, multicenter diagnostic study. The primary endpoint was MACE, including all-cause death, cardiac arrest, AMI, cardiogenic shock, sustained ventricular arrhythmia, and high-grade atrioventricular block within 30 days including index events. The secondary endpoint was MACE thorn unstable angina (UA) receiving early (# 24 h) revascularization. RESULTS Among 3,123 patients, the ESC hs-cTnT 0/1 h algorithm triaged significantly more patients toward rule-out compared with the extended algorithm (60%; 95% CI: 59% to 62% vs. 45%; 95% CI: 43% to 46%; p < 0.001), while maintaining similar 30-day MACE rates (0.6%; 95% CI: 0.3% to 1.1% vs. 0.4%; 95% CI: 0.1% to 0.9%; p = 0.429), resulting in a similar negative predictive value (99.4%; 95% CI: 98.9% to 99.6% vs. 99.6%; 95% CI: 99.2% to 99.8%; p = 0.097). The ESC hs-cTnT 0/1 h algorithm ruled-in fewer patients (16%; 95% CI: 14.9% to 17.5% vs. 26%; 95% CI: 24.2% to 27.2%; p < 0.001) compared with the extended algorithm, albeit with a higher positive predictive value (76.6%; 95% CI: 72.8% to 80.1% vs. 59%; 95% CI: 55.5% to 62.3%; p < 0.001). For 30-day MACE thorn UA, the ESC hs-cTnT 0/1 h algorithm had a higher positive predictive value for rule-in, whereas the extended algorithm had a higher negative predictive value for the rule-out. Similar findings emerged when using hs-cTnI. CONCLUSIONS The ESC hs-cTn 0/1 h algorithm better balanced efficacy and safety in the prediction of MACE, whereas the extended algorithm is the preferred option for the rule-out of 30-day MACE thorn UA. (Advantageous Predictors of Acute Coronary Syndromes Evaluation [APACE]; NCT00470587). (C) 2019 the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据