4.6 Article

Challenging the 99th percentile: A lower troponin cutoff leads to low mortality of chest pain patients

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 232, 期 -, 页码 289-293

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.12.167

关键词

Troponin; Acute coronary syndrome; 99th percentile; Outcome

资金

  1. German Center of Cardiovascular Research (DZHK)
  2. Abbott Diagnostics for the BACC trial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Rule-out of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction is based on consecutive measurements of cardiac troponins using the 99th percentile of the respective assay as cutoff. The new ESC guidelines alternatively offer rapid 1 h algorithms with lower cutoffs than the 99th percentile for rule-out of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. We aimed to compare a recently introduced 1 h algorithm based on a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-TnI) cutoff of 6 ng/L at 0 h and 1 h to the current standard of care using the 99th percentile (27 ng/L) as cutoff with reference to follow-up events in a large chest pain cohort. Methods: Hs-TnI was measured at three time points (0 h, 1 h and 3 h) in 1625 patients presenting with suspected myocardial infarction to the emergency department of the University-Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. Seventy-five patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were excluded from the analysis. All-cause mortality, cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction, revascularization and cardiac rehospitalization after 12 months were assessed. Results: Patients ruled out by the 1 h algorithm showed significantly less cardiac rehospitalizations (12.84% vs. 17.66%; p < 0.001), and overall mortality (1.30% vs 3.46%, p < 0.001) compared to using the 99th percentile as cutoff. The majority of deaths were caused by non-cardiac reasons. Cardiac deaths were rare using the 1 h algorithm (0.21%). Conclusion: The commonly used 99th percentile as cutoff neglects patients with a high risk in the setting of acute chest pain. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.6
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