Analysis reveals high troponin levels link to increased mortality and incomplete revascularisation in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.
Background: Blood troponin I (TnI) concentrations, the reasons for increases in TnI after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and the effects of TnI on short- and long-term outcomes are not well understood. Methods: Patients undergoing off-pump CABG at Anzhen Hospital between 2011 and 2022 were reviewed. Data on peak postoperative TnI and high-sensitivity (hs) TnI were collected, and patients were divided into a high TnI group (TnI ≥10 μg/l or hsTnI ≥10,000 pg/ml) and low TnI group. Baseline characteristics, graft flow, perioperative outcomes and long-term mortality were compared between the two groups. Results: In all, 19,196 patients were included in the study (median age 63 years; interquartile range [IQR] 57–68 years; 14,423 (75.1%) male). Compared with the low TnI group, patients in the high TnI group were more likely to have an intra-aortic balloon pump inserted (17.8% vs. 2.9%; p<0.001), receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support (3.6% vs. 0.1%; p<0.001), and undergo early revascularisation (2.81% vs. 0.12%; p<0.001); the high TnI group also had more in-hospital deaths (2.7% vs. 0.2%; p<0.001). After propensity score matching, patients in the high TnI group had fewer grafts to the left circumflex artery (LCX; 0.71 ± 0.58 versus 0.81 ± 0.57; p<0.001) and right coronary artery (RCA; 0.89±0.53 versus 0.95±0.53; p=0.011), as well as less graft flow to the LCX (median 33 [IQR 21–55] versus 41 [IQR 25–67] ml/min; p<0.001) and RCA (30 [IQR 18–50] versus 35 [IQR 22–55] ml/min; p<0.001) than patients in the low TnI group. Patients with high postoperative TnI also had reduced long-term survival (HR 2.59; 95% CI [1.76–3.82]; p<0.001). Conclusion: Elevated TnI following off-pump CABG may be associated with incomplete revascularisation in the LCX and RCA. It is also associated with increased early and late mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cui et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: