4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

The diagnostic and prognostic impact of the redefinition of acute myocardial infarction:: Lessons from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE)

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 151, 期 3, 页码 654-660

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.05.014

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The impact and prognostic value of the redefinition of myocardial infarction (MI) with more sensitive markers have not been evaluated prospectively in a large, less selected population with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods We evaluated the attack and case-fatality rates of MI based on initial and/or peak creatine kinase (CK), creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB), and cardiac troponin (the upper limit of normal [ULN] was defined according to the local hospital's standard) in a prospective observational registry of 26267 patients with ACS admitted to 106 hospitals in 14 countries. Results The addition of cardiac troponin-positive status to CK status as a criterion for the diagnosis of MI resulted in as many as I in 4 additional patients meeting the redefined criteria. Compared with patients without elevated levels of CK and cardiac troponin, the crude odds for dying during hospitalization were significantly higher for patients with elevated troponin but not CK levels of greater than or equal to the ULN (odds ratio [OR] 2.2, 95% CI 1.6-2.9), those without CK levels > 2 times the ULN (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.2-3.5), and those with nonelevated levels of CK-MB (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.2). The addition of cardiac troponin-positive status significantly increased the multivariable-adjusted odds for hospital death in patients with CK < 2 times the ULN (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1) but not for patients without elevated levels of CK or CK-MB. Conclusions The prognostic value of cardiac troponin, beyond that supplied by CK status or important baseline characteristics, assists in the identification of patients with ACS who are at increased risk for death.

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

4.5
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