Kai M Eggers1, Tomas Jernberg2, Bertil Lindahl3. 1. Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. Electronic address: kai.eggers@ucr.uu.se. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an expectation that with the adoption of more sensitive cardiac troponin (cTn) assays, unstable angina would become a rarity. However, recent data from the SWEDEHEART registry demonstrated that 15% of patients admitted with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome still were regarded as having unstable angina. We aimed to further investigate the clinical characteristics and outcome of these patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective, registry-based analysis (SWEDEHEART) including 3204 unstable patients, 18,194 non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients, and 977 controls without acute cardiovascular disease. All patients had available data on peak cTnT levels (more sensitive assay) and 1-year outcome. RESULTS: The annual proportions of patients with unstable angina (2009-2013) among those with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome ranged from 9.4% to 15.3%. Only 1239 unstable angina patients (39.7%) had a peak cTnT level ≤14 ng/L. Patients with unstable angina tended to be younger than those with NSTEMI but had higher prevalence of most cardiovascular risk factors and more advanced coronary artery disease. Compared with controls, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) regarding major cardiovascular events were 2.97 (1.30-6.78) and 5.44 (2.54-11.65) in unstable angina patients with peak cTnT ≤14 ng/L and >14 ng/L, respectively. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of unstable angina is still commonly used, even in the era of more sensitive cTn assays. Minor cTnT elevation is common, which makes unstable angina difficult to distinguish from NSTEMI. Patients with unstable angina have a nonneglectable cardiovascular risk. We suggest that the clinical management of patients presenting with unstable symptoms should depend on their estimated cardiovascular risk rather than on strictly applied diagnostic criteria.
BACKGROUND: There is an expectation that with the adoption of more sensitive cardiac troponin (cTn) assays, unstable angina would become a rarity. However, recent data from the SWEDEHEART registry demonstrated that 15% of patients admitted with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome still were regarded as having unstable angina. We aimed to further investigate the clinical characteristics and outcome of these patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective, registry-based analysis (SWEDEHEART) including 3204 unstable patients, 18,194 non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients, and 977 controls without acute cardiovascular disease. All patients had available data on peak cTnT levels (more sensitive assay) and 1-year outcome. RESULTS: The annual proportions of patients with unstable angina (2009-2013) among those with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome ranged from 9.4% to 15.3%. Only 1239 unstable anginapatients (39.7%) had a peak cTnT level ≤14 ng/L. Patients with unstable angina tended to be younger than those with NSTEMI but had higher prevalence of most cardiovascular risk factors and more advanced coronary artery disease. Compared with controls, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) regarding major cardiovascular events were 2.97 (1.30-6.78) and 5.44 (2.54-11.65) in unstable anginapatients with peak cTnT ≤14 ng/L and >14 ng/L, respectively. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of unstable angina is still commonly used, even in the era of more sensitive cTn assays. Minor cTnT elevation is common, which makes unstable angina difficult to distinguish from NSTEMI. Patients with unstable angina have a nonneglectable cardiovascular risk. We suggest that the clinical management of patients presenting with unstable symptoms should depend on their estimated cardiovascular risk rather than on strictly applied diagnostic criteria.
Authors: Júlia Karády; Thomas Mayrhofer; Maros Ferencik; John T Nagurney; James E Udelson; Andreas A Kammerlander; Jerome L Fleg; W Frank Peacock; James L Januzzi; Wolfgang Koenig; Udo Hoffmann Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Andrea T Duran; Carol Ewing Garber; Talea Cornelius; Joseph E Schwartz; Keith M Diaz Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Vedant Gupta; Marc Paranzino; Talal Alnabelsi; Karam Ayoub; Joshua Eason; Andin Mullis; John R Kotter; Andrew Parks; Levi May; Sethabhisha Nerusu; Chen Dai; Daniel Cleland; Steve Wah Leung; Vincent Leigh Sorrell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Victor J van den Berg; Rohit M Oemrawsingh; Victor A W M Umans; Isabella Kardys; Folkert W Asselbergs; Pim van der Harst; Imo E Hoefer; Bas Kietselaer; Timo Lenderink; Anton J Oude Ophuis; Ron H van Schaik; Robbert J de Winter; K Martijn Akkerhuis; Eric Boersma Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Anna Meta Dyrvig Kristensen; Manan Pareek; Kristian Hay Kragholm; Thomas Steen Gyldenstierne Sehested; Michael Hecht Olsen; Eva Bossano Prescott Journal: Cardiology Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Evangelos Giannitsis; Moritz Biener; Hauke Hund; Matthias Mueller-Hennessen; Mehrshad Vafaie; Jochen Gandowitz; Christoph Riedle; Julia Löhr; Hugo A Katus; Kiril M Stoyanov Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2019-07-19 Impact factor: 5.460