Why the study?
Data were lacking regarding sex differences in incidence and factors associated with non-ischemic myocardial injury in a real-world emergency department setting.
Does male sex increase the incidence of non-ischemic myocardial injury in patients presenting to the emergency department?
Does male sex increase the incidence of non-ischemic myocardial injury in patients presenting to the emergency department?
In a real-world emergency department setting, non-ischemic myocardial injury occurs more frequently in men and is associated with older age and comorbidities.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Male sex association with ED myocardial injury may inform risk models; leaves open causality and need for prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury is associated with adverse outcomes. No data are reported about sex differences in incidence and factors associated with myocardial injury in an emergency department (ED) setting from a real-world perspective. We aimed to assess whether sex plays a major role in the diagnosis of myocardial injury in the ED. METHODS: In this subanalysis of a retrospective study, patients presenting at the ED with at least one high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) value and without acute coronary syndromes diagnosis were compared. RESULTS: 31,383 patients were admitted to the ED, 4660 had one hs-cTnT value, and 3937 were enrolled: 1943 females (49.4%) and 1994 males (50.6%). The diagnosis of myocardial injury was higher among men (36.8% vs. 32.9%, p < 0.01). Male sex was independently associated with myocardial injury. An older age, an elevated NT-proB-type Natriuretic Peptide and a lower estimated glomerular filtrate rate were independently associated with myocardial injury in both sexes. CONCLUSIONS: In the ED, from a real-world perspective, myocardial injury occurred more frequently in males, and it was associated with older age and the presence of cardiac, lung, and kidney disease but not higher hs-cTnT values.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Golino et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: