Dina Melki1, Johan Lugnegård2, Joakim Alfredsson3, Suzanne Lind4, Kai M Eggers2, Bertil Lindahl2, Tomas Jernberg5. 1. Department of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: Dina.Melki@karolinska.se. 2. Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 3. Department of Cardiology and Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. 4. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Clinical Chemistry, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Department of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac troponin is the preferred biomarker for diagnosing myocardial infarction (MI). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the implications of introducing high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) into clinical practice and to define at what hs-cTnT level risk starts to increase. METHODS: We analyzed data from 48,594 patients admitted because of symptoms suggesting an acute coronary syndrome and who were entered into a large national registry. Patients were divided into Group 1, those with hs-cTnT<6 ng/l; Group 2, those with hs-cTnT 6 to 13 ng/l; Group 3, those with hs-cTnT 14 to 49 ng/l (i.e., a group in which most patients would have had a negative cardiac troponin T with older assays); and Group 4, those with hs-cTnT≥50 ng/l. RESULTS: There were 5,790 (11.9%), 6,491 (13.4%), 10,476 (21.6%), and 25,837 (53.2%) patients in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. In Groups 1 to 4, the proportions with MI were 2.2%, 2.6%, 18.2%, and 81.2%. There was a stepwise increase in the proportion of patients with significant coronary stenoses, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and death during follow-up. When dividing patients into 20 groups according to hs-cTnT level, the adjusted mortality started to increase at an hs-cTnT level of 14 ng/l. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing hs-cTnT into clinical practice has led to the recognition of a large proportion of patients with minor cardiac troponin increases (14 to 49 ng/l), the majority of whom do not have MI. Although a heterogeneous group, these patients remain at high risk, and the adjusted mortality rate started to increase at the level of the 99th percentile in healthy controls.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac troponin is the preferred biomarker for diagnosing myocardial infarction (MI). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the implications of introducing high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) into clinical practice and to define at what hs-cTnT level risk starts to increase. METHODS: We analyzed data from 48,594 patients admitted because of symptoms suggesting an acute coronary syndrome and who were entered into a large national registry. Patients were divided into Group 1, those with hs-cTnT<6 ng/l; Group 2, those with hs-cTnT 6 to 13 ng/l; Group 3, those with hs-cTnT 14 to 49 ng/l (i.e., a group in which most patients would have had a negative cardiac troponin T with older assays); and Group 4, those with hs-cTnT≥50 ng/l. RESULTS: There were 5,790 (11.9%), 6,491 (13.4%), 10,476 (21.6%), and 25,837 (53.2%) patients in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. In Groups 1 to 4, the proportions with MI were 2.2%, 2.6%, 18.2%, and 81.2%. There was a stepwise increase in the proportion of patients with significant coronary stenoses, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and death during follow-up. When dividing patients into 20 groups according to hs-cTnT level, the adjusted mortality started to increase at an hs-cTnT level of 14 ng/l. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing hs-cTnT into clinical practice has led to the recognition of a large proportion of patients with minor cardiac troponin increases (14 to 49 ng/l), the majority of whom do not have MI. Although a heterogeneous group, these patients remain at high risk, and the adjusted mortality rate started to increase at the level of the 99th percentile in healthy controls.
Authors: Matthew T H Lowry; Dimitrios Doudesis; Ryan Wereski; Dorien M Kimenai; Christopher Tuck; Amy V Ferry; Anda Bularga; Caelan Taggart; Kuan K Lee; Andrew R Chapman; Anoop S V Shah; David E Newby; Nicholas L Mills; Atul Anand Journal: Circulation Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 39.918
Authors: Jonathan Hinton; Mark Mariathas; Lavinia Gabara; Zoe Nicholas; Rick Allan; Sanjay Ramamoorthy; Mamas A Mamas; Michael Mahmoudi; Paul Cook; Nick Curzen Journal: Clin Med (Lond) Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 2.659
Authors: Philip W Chui; Denise Esserman; Lori A Bastian; Jeptha P Curtis; Parul U Gandhi; Lindsey Rosman; Nihar Desai; Ronald G Hauser Journal: Med Care Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Sonia Mirabet; Alvaro García-Osuna; Pablo Garcia de Frutos; Andreu Ferrero-Gregori; Vicens Brossa; Laura Lopez; Ruben Leta; Joan Garcia-Picart; Josep M Padro; José Luis Sánchez-Quesada; Juan Cinca; Jordi Ordonez-Llanos; Eulalia Roig Journal: Dis Markers Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 3.434
Authors: Pupalan Iyngkaran; William Chan; Danny Liew; Jalal Zamani; John D Horowitz; Michael Jelinek; David L Hare; James A Shaw Journal: World J Methodol Date: 2019-01-18