OBJECTIVES: We compared single-point cardiac troponin T (cTnT) measurements with parameters from serial sampling during 96 h after acute myocardial infarction with magnetic resonance imaging measured infarct mass. BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) allows exact quantification of myocardial infarct size. Clinically, measurement of cardiac biomarkers is a more convenient alternative. METHODS: The CE-MRI infarct mass was determined 4 days after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in 31 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 30 non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients. All single-point, peak, and integrated area under the curve (AUC) cTnT values were plotted against CE-MRI infarct mass. RESULTS: All single-point and serial cTnT values were significantly higher in STEMI than in NSTEMI (p < 0.01) patients. Except for the admission values, all single-point values on any of the first 4 days, peak cTnT and AUC cTnT were found to correlate comparably well with infarct mass. Among single-point measurements, cTnT on day 4 (cTnTD4) showed highest correlation and performed as well as peak cTnT or AUC cTnT (r = 0.66 vs. r = 0.65 vs. r = 0.69). Receiver-operator characteristic analysis demonstrated that cTnTD4 >0.84 microg/l predicted infarct mass above median as well as peak cTnT >1.57 microg/l or AUC cTnT (receiver-operator characteristic for AUC: 0.839 vs. 0.866 vs. 0.893). However, estimation of infarct mass with cTnTD4, peak cTnT, and AUC cTnT was worse in patients with NSTEMI (r = 0.36, r = 0.5, r = 0.36) than in STEMI (r = 0.75 vs. r = 0.65 vs. r = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: All single-point cTnTs, except on admission, give a good estimation of infarct size and perform as well as peak cTnT or AUC cTnT. Infarct estimation by single-point measurements, particularly cTnTD4, may gain clinical acceptance because the measurement is easy and inexpensive.
OBJECTIVES: We compared single-point cardiac troponin T (cTnT) measurements with parameters from serial sampling during 96 h after acute myocardial infarction with magnetic resonance imaging measured infarct mass. BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) allows exact quantification of myocardial infarct size. Clinically, measurement of cardiac biomarkers is a more convenient alternative. METHODS: The CE-MRI infarct mass was determined 4 days after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in 31 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 30 non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients. All single-point, peak, and integrated area under the curve (AUC) cTnT values were plotted against CE-MRI infarct mass. RESULTS: All single-point and serial cTnT values were significantly higher in STEMI than in NSTEMI (p < 0.01) patients. Except for the admission values, all single-point values on any of the first 4 days, peak cTnT and AUC cTnT were found to correlate comparably well with infarct mass. Among single-point measurements, cTnT on day 4 (cTnTD4) showed highest correlation and performed as well as peak cTnT or AUC cTnT (r = 0.66 vs. r = 0.65 vs. r = 0.69). Receiver-operator characteristic analysis demonstrated that cTnTD4 >0.84 microg/l predicted infarct mass above median as well as peak cTnT >1.57 microg/l or AUC cTnT (receiver-operator characteristic for AUC: 0.839 vs. 0.866 vs. 0.893). However, estimation of infarct mass with cTnTD4, peak cTnT, and AUC cTnT was worse in patients with NSTEMI (r = 0.36, r = 0.5, r = 0.36) than in STEMI (r = 0.75 vs. r = 0.65 vs. r = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: All single-point cTnTs, except on admission, give a good estimation of infarct size and perform as well as peak cTnT or AUC cTnT. Infarct estimation by single-point measurements, particularly cTnTD4, may gain clinical acceptance because the measurement is easy and inexpensive.
Authors: Ziad Faramand; Stephanie O Frisch; Christian Martin-Gill; Parker Landis; Mohammad Alrawashdeh; Khaled A Al-Robaidi; Clifton W Callaway; Salah S Al-Zaiti Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Ivan Ilic; Ivan Stankovic; Radosav Vidakovic; Vladimir Jovanovic; Alja Vlahovic Stipac; BiIjana Putnikovic; Aleksandar N Neskovic Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Mirja Neizel; Simon Futterer; Henning Steen; Evangelos Giannitsis; Lars Reinhardt; Dirk Lossnitzer; Stephanie Lehrke; Allan S Jaffe; Hugo A Katus Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2009-07-07 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Adelaide M Arruda-Olson; Véronique L Roger; Allan S Jaffe; David O Hodge; Raymond J Gibbons; Todd D Miller Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-05
Authors: Gert Klug; Agnes Mayr; Johannes Mair; Michael Schocke; Michael Nocker; Thomas Trieb; Werner Jaschke; Otmar Pachinger; Bernhard Metzler Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Joseph L Blackshear; Donald E Cutlip; Gary S Roubin; Michael D Hill; Pierre P Leimgruber; Richard J Begg; David J Cohen; John F Eidt; Craig R Narins; Ronald J Prineas; Stephen P Glasser; Jenifer H Voeks; Thomas G Brott Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 29.690