Literature DB >> 21095267

Troponin-positive, MB-negative patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: An undertreated but high-risk patient group: Results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network-Get With The Guidelines (NCDR ACTION-GWTG) Registry.

Michael C Kontos1, James A de Lemos, Fang-Shu Ou, Stephan D Wiviott, Joanne M Foody, L Kristin Newby, Anita Chen, Matthew T Roe.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite the 2000 and 2007 redefinition of myocardial infarction (MI), patients who are troponin (Tn) positive ([+]) but MB negative ([-]) may not be considered to have MI, particularly in the absence of known coronary disease (prior MI or revascularization; coronary artery disease [CAD]). How this affects treatment and outcomes has not been well described.
METHODS: Direct arrival patients with non-ST elevation MI (NSTEMI) enrolled in the American College of Cardiology NCDR ACTION-GWTG Registry were included. Patients missing marker data who were Tn (-) and had CAD were excluded. Troponin (+) patients were categorized as MB (+) (n = 11,563) or MB (-) (n = 4,501). Treatments and in-hospital outcomes were compared between the 2 groups using logistic regression.
RESULTS: Of the 16,064 NSTEMI patients, 28% were MB (-). The MB (-) patients were older (median age 68 vs 65 years) and had more comorbidities (hypertension 71% vs 66%, diabetes 31% vs 27%, heart failure 22% vs 19%; all Ps < .01). After adjusting for baseline characteristics, MB (-) patients were significantly less likely to receive clopidogrel, antithrombins, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists, or angiography (all Ps < .001). In-hospital mortality was lower in MB (-) patients (3.8% vs 4.9%, P < .01), which remained significant after adjusting for baseline variables (odds ratio 0, 69, 95% CI 0.6-0.9, P = .002).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients without known CAD who have NSTEMI and are MB (-) have a higher risk profile but are less likely to receive guideline-recommended acute pharmacologic treatment than those who are MB (+). Given the relatively high mortality in this group, increased emphasis on improving quality of care in Tn (+)/MB (-) patients is warranted.
Copyright © 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21095267     DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.07.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Heart J        ISSN: 0002-8703            Impact factor:   4.749


  5 in total

1.  National trends in stroke after acute myocardial infarction among Medicare patients in the United States: 1999 to 2010.

Authors:  Yun Wang; Judith H Lichtman; Kumar Dharmarajan; Frederick A Masoudi; Joseph S Ross; John A Dodson; Jersey Chen; John A Spertus; Sarwat I Chaudhry; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 4.749

Review 2.  Redefining myocardial infarction: what is new in the ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Third Universal Definition of myocardial infarction?

Authors:  Hani Jneid; Mahboob Alam; Salim S Virani; Biykem Bozkurt
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2013 Jul-Sep

3.  Trends in cardiac biomarker testing in China for patients with acute myocardial infarction, 2001 to 2011: China PEACE-retrospective AMI study.

Authors:  Lijuan Zhan; Frederick A Masoudi; Xi Li; Shuang Hu; Arjun K Venkatesh; John A Spertus; Zhenqiu Lin; Nihar R Desai; Jing Li; Harlan M Krumholz; Lixin Jiang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-20       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Biomarkers in Cardiology - Part 2: In Coronary Heart Disease, Valve Disease and Special Situations.

Authors: 
Journal:  Arq Bras Cardiol       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 2.000

5.  Troponin Marker for Acute Coronary Occlusion and Patient Outcome Following Cardiac Arrest.

Authors:  David A Pearson; Catherine M Wares; Katherine A Mayer; Michael S Runyon; Jonathan R Studnek; Shana L Ward; Kathi M Kraft; Alan C Heffner
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2015-12-08
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.