BACKGROUND: Cardiac troponins are the preferred biomarkers to predict infarct size in patients (pts) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Less information is currently available to verify the prognostic value of such a biomarker surrogate. METHODS: We included 82 pts with acute STEMI and compared all single time point and serial cardiac troponin T (cTnT) values (peak and area-under-the-curve) from admission until day 4 to predict future major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: Pts who had suffered any MACE during follow-up had higher cTnT values (median (25th/75th percentiles) on day 4 (3.16 microg/l (2.71/5.20) Vs. 2.1 microg/l (1.19/3.96), P=0.0304), and higher peak cTnT values (5.11 microg/l (3.31/9.47) Vs. 2.92 microg/l (1.81/5.63), P=0.0234). The likelihood to develop a composite of MACE was twofold higher in the intermediate cTnT tertile (1.66-3.04 microg/l, n=23), and in the upper cTnT tertile (3.35-20.68 microg/l, n=23) for cTnT on day 4. For cTnT peak the risk was 1.7-fold higher in the intermediate cTnT peak tertile (2.55-5.01 microg/l, n=28) and 2.4-fold in the upper cTnT peak tertile (5.11-18.93 microg/l, n=27). The optimal ROC cutoff for cTnT to predict the composite of MACE was 2.69 microg/l measured on day 4 and 2.85 microg/l for the cTnT peak. CONCLUSIONS: A single measurement of cTnT after STEMI is an independent predictor for MACE, performs as effective as serial cTnT sampling and may be useful to assess future events.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac troponins are the preferred biomarkers to predict infarct size in patients (pts) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Less information is currently available to verify the prognostic value of such a biomarker surrogate. METHODS: We included 82 pts with acute STEMI and compared all single time point and serial cardiac troponin T (cTnT) values (peak and area-under-the-curve) from admission until day 4 to predict future major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS:Pts who had suffered any MACE during follow-up had higher cTnT values (median (25th/75th percentiles) on day 4 (3.16 microg/l (2.71/5.20) Vs. 2.1 microg/l (1.19/3.96), P=0.0304), and higher peak cTnT values (5.11 microg/l (3.31/9.47) Vs. 2.92 microg/l (1.81/5.63), P=0.0234). The likelihood to develop a composite of MACE was twofold higher in the intermediate cTnT tertile (1.66-3.04 microg/l, n=23), and in the upper cTnT tertile (3.35-20.68 microg/l, n=23) for cTnT on day 4. For cTnT peak the risk was 1.7-fold higher in the intermediate cTnT peak tertile (2.55-5.01 microg/l, n=28) and 2.4-fold in the upper cTnT peak tertile (5.11-18.93 microg/l, n=27). The optimal ROC cutoff for cTnT to predict the composite of MACE was 2.69 microg/l measured on day 4 and 2.85 microg/l for the cTnT peak. CONCLUSIONS: A single measurement of cTnT after STEMI is an independent predictor for MACE, performs as effective as serial cTnT sampling and may be useful to assess future events.
Authors: H J Roth; R M Leithäuser; H Doppelmayr; M Doppelmayr; H Finkernagel; S P von Duvillard; S Korff; H A Katus; Evangelos Giannitsis; R Beneke Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2007-04-26 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Eric Larose; Peter Ganz; H Glenn Reynolds; Sharmila Dorbala; Marcelo F Di Carli; Kenneth A Brown; Raymond Y Kwong Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-02-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Volkhard Kurowski; Evangelos Giannitsis; Dirk P Killermann; Uwe K H Wiegand; Ralph Toelg; Hendrik Bonnemeier; Franz Hartmann; Hugo A Katus; Gert Richardt Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2007-06-04 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: John F Younger; Sven Plein; Julian Barth; John P Ridgway; Stephen G Ball; John P Greenwood Journal: Heart Date: 2007-05-31 Impact factor: 5.994
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: 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: Arthur Filusch; Derliz Mereles; Ekkehard Gruenig; Sebastian Buss; Hugo A Katus; F Joachim Meyer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Gjin Ndrepepa; Dritan Keta; Stefanie Schulz; Robert A Byrne; Julinda Mehilli; Jürgen Pache; Melchior Seyfarth; Albert Schömig; Adnan Kastrati Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2009-09-10 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Christoph J Jensen; Dominik Bleckmann; Holger C Eberle; Kai Nassenstein; Thomas Schlosser; Georg V Sabin; Christoph K Naber; Oliver Bruder Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2009-08-14 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Boris Bigalke; Konstantinos Stellos; Tobias Geisler; Stephan Lindemann; Andreas E May; Meinrad Gawaz Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2010-01-05 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Suzanne de Waha; Ingo Eitel; Steffen Desch; Georg Fuernau; Philipp Lurz; Thomas Stiermaier; Stephan Blazek; Gerhard Schuler; Holger Thiele Journal: Trials Date: 2014-06-25 Impact factor: 2.279