4.6 Article

Kinetics of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T or troponin I compared to creatine kinase in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 53, 期 5, 页码 707-714

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2014-0475

关键词

acute myocardial infarction; creatine kinase; high-sensitivity troponin; kinetics; percutaneous coronary intervention; troponin I; troponin T

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cardiac biomarkers are the cornerstone of the biological definition of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The key role of troponins in diagnosis of AMI is well established. Moreover, kinetics of troponin I (cTnI) and creatine kinase (CK) after AMI are correlated to the prognosis. New technical assessment like high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) raises concerns because of its unclear kinetic following the peak. This study aims to compare kinetics of cTnI and hs-cTnT to CK in patients with large AMI successfully treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: We prospectively studied 62 patients with anterior AMI successfully reperfused with primary angioplasty. We evaluated two consecutive groups: the first one regularly assessed by both CK and cTnI methods and the second group by CK and hs-cTnT. Modeling of kinetics was realized using mixed effects with cubic splines. Results: Kinetics of markers showed a peak at 7.9 h for CK, at 10.9 h (6.9-12.75) for cTnI and at 12 h for hs-cTnT. This peak was followed by a nearly log linear decrease for cTnI and CK by contrast to hs-cTnT which appeared with a biphasic shape curve marked by a second peak at 82 h. There was no significant difference between the decrease of cTnI and CK (p = 0.63). CK fell by 79.5% (76.1-99.9) vs. cTnI by 86.8% (76.6-92.7). In the hs-cTnT group there was a significant difference in the decrease by 26.5% (9-42.9) when compared with CK that fell by 79.5% (64.3-90.7). Conclusions: Kinetic of hs-cTnT and not cTnI differs from CK. The role of hs-cTnT in prognosis has to be investigated.

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

4.6
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