OBJECTIVE: The frequency and implications of an elevated cardiac troponin (4th or 5th generation TnT) in patients outside of the emergency department or presenting with non-cardiac conditions is unclear. METHODS: Consecutive patients aged 18 years or older admitted for a primary non-cardiac condition who had the 4th generation TnT drawn had the 5th generation TnT run on the residual blood sample. Primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality (ACM) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) respectively at 1 year. RESULTS: 918 patients were included (mean age 59.8 years, 55% male) in the cohort. 69% had elevated 5th generation TnT while 46% had elevated 4th generation TnT. 5th generation TnT was more sensitive and less specific than 4th generation TnT in predicting both ACM and MACE. The sensitivities for the 5th generation TnT assay were 85% for ACM and 90% for MACE rates, compared to 65% and 70% respectively for the 4th generation assay. 5th generation TnT positive patients that were missed by 4th generation TnT had a higher risk of ACM (27.5%) than patients with both assays negative (27.5% vs 11.1%, p<0.001), but lower than patients who had both assay positive (42.1%). MACE rates were not better stratified using the 5th generation TnT assay. CONCLUSIONS: In patients admitted for a non-cardiac condition, 5th generation TnT is more sensitive although less specific in predicting MACE and ACM. 5th generation TnT identifies an intermediate risk group for ACM previously missed with the 4th generation assay.
OBJECTIVE: The frequency and implications of an elevated cardiac troponin (4th or 5th generation TnT) in patients outside of the emergency department or presenting with non-cardiac conditions is unclear. METHODS: Consecutive patients aged 18 years or older admitted for a primary non-cardiac condition who had the 4th generation TnT drawn had the 5th generation TnT run on the residual blood sample. Primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality (ACM) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) respectively at 1 year. RESULTS: 918 patients were included (mean age 59.8 years, 55% male) in the cohort. 69% had elevated 5th generation TnT while 46% had elevated 4th generation TnT. 5th generation TnT was more sensitive and less specific than 4th generation TnT in predicting both ACM and MACE. The sensitivities for the 5th generation TnT assay were 85% for ACM and 90% for MACE rates, compared to 65% and 70% respectively for the 4th generation assay. 5th generation TnT positive patients that were missed by 4th generation TnT had a higher risk of ACM (27.5%) than patients with both assays negative (27.5% vs 11.1%, p<0.001), but lower than patients who had both assay positive (42.1%). MACE rates were not better stratified using the 5th generation TnT assay. CONCLUSIONS: In patients admitted for a non-cardiac condition, 5th generation TnT is more sensitive although less specific in predicting MACE and ACM. 5th generation TnT identifies an intermediate risk group for ACM previously missed with the 4th generation assay.
Authors: Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Allan S Jaffe; Maarten L Simoons; Bernard R Chaitman; Harvey D White; Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Harvey D White; Allan S Jaffe; Hugo A Katus; Fred S Apple; Bertil Lindahl; David A Morrow; Bernard A Chaitman; Peter M Clemmensen; Per Johanson; Hanoch Hod; Richard Underwood; Jeroen J Bax; Robert O Bonow; Fausto Pinto; Raymond J Gibbons; Keith A Fox; Dan Atar; L Kristin Newby; Marcello Galvani; Christian W Hamm; Barry F Uretsky; Ph Gabriel Steg; William Wijns; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Phillippe Menasché; Jan Ravkilde; E Magnus Ohman; Elliott M Antman; Lars C Wallentin; Paul W Armstrong; Maarten L Simoons; James L Januzzi; Markku S Nieminen; Mihai Gheorghiade; Gerasimos Filippatos; Russell V Luepker; Stephen P Fortmann; Wayne D Rosamond; Dan Levy; David Wood; Sidney C Smith; Dayi Hu; José-Luis Lopez-Sendon; Rose Marie Robertson; Douglas Weaver; Michael Tendera; Alfred A Bove; Alexander N Parkhomenko; Elena J Vasilieva; Shanti Mendis Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Christopher W Seymour; Jason N Kennedy; Shu Wang; Chung-Chou H Chang; Corrine F Elliott; Zhongying Xu; Scott Berry; Gilles Clermont; Gregory Cooper; Hernando Gomez; David T Huang; John A Kellum; Qi Mi; Steven M Opal; Victor Talisa; Tom van der Poll; Shyam Visweswaran; Yoram Vodovotz; Jeremy C Weiss; Donald M Yealy; Sachin Yende; Derek C Angus Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michele Brignole; Angel Moya; Frederik J de Lange; Jean-Claude Deharo; Perry M Elliott; Alessandra Fanciulli; Artur Fedorowski; Raffaello Furlan; Rose Anne Kenny; Alfonso Martín; Vincent Probst; Matthew J Reed; Ciara P Rice; Richard Sutton; Andrea Ungar; J Gert van Dijk Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: E Di Angelantonio; M Fiorelli; D Toni; M L Sacchetti; S Lorenzano; A Falcou; M V Ciarla; M Suppa; L Bonanni; G Bertazzoni; F Aguglia; C Argentino Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Stefan Blankenberg; Veikko Salomaa; Nataliya Makarova; Francisco Ojeda; Philipp Wild; Karl J Lackner; Torben Jørgensen; Barbara Thorand; Annette Peters; Matthias Nauck; Astrid Petersmann; Erkki Vartiainen; Giovanni Veronesi; Paolo Brambilla; Simona Costanzo; Licia Iacoviello; Gerard Linden; John Yarnell; Christopher C Patterson; Brendan M Everett; Paul M Ridker; Jukka Kontto; Renate B Schnabel; Wolfgang Koenig; Frank Kee; Tanja Zeller; Kari Kuulasmaa Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Angelika Hammerer-Lercher; Thomas Ploner; Sabrina Neururer; Peter Schratzberger; Andrea Griesmacher; Otmar Pachinger; Johannes Mair Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 5.501