4.3 Article

Cardiac troponin changes to distinguish type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction and 180-day mortality risk

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1177/2048872614538411

关键词

Myocardial infarction; cardiac troponin; delta troponin; universal definition; risk outcomes; type 2 MI

资金

  1. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics IIS Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To determine the ability of serial cardiac troponin (cTnI) changes (delta) to distinguish type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) (excluding all ST-segment elevation MIs (STEMIs)) and describe the diagnostic accuracy and 180-day mortality in MI versus no-MI patients. Methods and results: Serial cTnIs were measured in 1112 consecutive patients without STEMI and within 6h of presentation to a United States emergency department: 856 (77%) with no MI, 66 (6%) type 1 MI, and 190 (17%) type 2 MI. Of the 0 to 3h and 0 to 6h absolute and relative cTnI changes, only the distribution of absolute change from 0 to 6h was significantly different between type 1 and type 2 MI: median (interquartile range) 311 (1430) ng/l vs. 80 (330) ng/l, p = 0.03. Neither the absolute concentration change nor the absolute percent change from either 0h to 3h (areas under the curves (AUCs) 0.57 and 0.54 respectively) or 0 h to 6h (AUCs 0.60 and 0.51) improved on the performance of the individual cTnI results at 3h (AUC 0.60) or 6h (AUC 0.62), respectively. After adjusting for age, and histories of heart failure and renal insufficiency, those with type 2 MI (hazard ratio 2.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-5.9, p = 0.004) and those with no index MI and cTnI(max0-6h) > 34 ng/l (2.5, CI 1.1-6.0, p = 0.04) had increased risk of death within 180 days compared with those with no MI and cTnI(max0-6h) <= 34 ng/l. Conclusion: Delta cTnI did not aid in distinguishing type 1 MI from the more common type 2 MI. Patients diagnosed with type 2 MIs, which represented more than half of all index MIs, had increased risk of death after discharge.

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

4.3
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