4.7 Article

Cardiac troponin I for stratification of early outcomes and the efficacy of enoxaparin in unstable angina: A TIMI-11B substudy

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 1812-1817

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00942-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES We sought to evaluate cardiac troponin I (cTnI) for predicting early clinical outcomes and the efficacy of enoxaparin among patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and negative creatine kinase, MB fraction (CK-MB) levels. BACKGROUND Cardiac TnI identifies patients with unstable angina who are at higher risk of death or myocardial infarction (MI) by 30 days. The utility of cTnI for predicting very early clinical events, including recurrent ischemia, and the efficacy of enoxaparin are not yet established. METHODS At baseline and 12 h to 24 h after enrollment in the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI)-11B trial, samples were collected for cTnI determination. RESULTS Among 359 patients with negative serial CK-MB values, 50.1% had a cTnI result greater than or equal to0.1 ng/ml within the first 24 h. Patients with elevated cTnI were at higher risk of death or MI at 48 h (3.9 vs. 0%, p = 0.01) and 14 days (13.9 vs. 2.2%, p < 0.0001). Elevated cTnI also correlated with higher risk of recurrent ischemia requiring urgent revascularization by 48 h (10.0 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.001) and 14 days (20.6 vs. 5.6%, p 0.0001). Enoxaparin had a greater benefit among patients with elevated vs. normal cTnI (p = 0.03), achieving a 47% reduction in the risk of death, MI or urgent revascularization by 14 days in cTnI-positive patients (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS Elevation of cTnI among patients with non-ST segment elevation ACS and negative levels of CK-MB identifies those at higher risk for very early adverse outcomes, including severe recurrent ischemia. Treatment with enoxaparin reduces the risk associated with elevated cTnI. (C) 2000 Ly the American College of Cardiology.

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