4.7 Article

Elevation of cardiac troponin I during non-exertional heat-related illnesses in the context of a heatwave

期刊

CRITICAL CARE
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/cc9034

关键词

-

资金

  1. Direction Regionale de la Recherche Clinique d'Ile de France (Paris, France) [CRC 03-150]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The prognostic value of cardiac troponin I (cTnI) in patients having a heat-related illness during a heat wave has been poorly documented. Methods: In a post hoc analysis, we evaluated 514 patients admitted to emergency departments during the August 2003 heat wave in Paris, having a core temperature >38.5 degrees C and who had analysis of cTnI levels. cTnI was considered as normal, moderately elevated (abnormality threshold to 1.5 ng.mL (1)), or severely elevated (>1.5 ng.mL (1)). Patients were classified according to our previously described risk score (high, intermediate, and low-risk of death). Results: Mean age was 84 +/- 12 years, mean body temperature 40.3 +/- 1.2 degrees C. cTnI was moderately elevated in 165 (32%) and severely elevated in 97 (19%) patients. One-year survival was significantly decreased in patients with moderate or severe increase in cTnI (24 and 46% vs 58%, all P < 0.05). Using logistic regression, four independent variables were associated with an elevated cTnI: previous coronary artery disease, Glasgow coma scale < 12, serum creatinine >120 mu mol.L-1, and heart rate >110 bpm. Using Cox regression, only severely elevated cTnI was an independent prognostic factor (hazard ratio 1.93, 95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.77) when risk score was taken into account. One-year survival was decreased in patients with elevated cTnI only in high risk patients (17 vs 31%, P = 0.04). Conclusions: cTnI is frequently elevated in patients with non-exertional heat-related illnesses during a heat wave and is an independent risk factor only in high risk patients where severe increase (>1.5 ng.mL(-1)) indicates severe myocardial damage.

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