Key result
Novel, sensitive cardiac troponin assays improve the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, requiring clinicians to interpret troponin as a quantitative variable.
Sensitive cardiac troponin assays improve early diagnosis of AMI but require clinicians to interpret troponin as a quantitative variable to differentiate between acute and chronic myocardial injury.
Urges quantitative troponin assessment in suspected AMI; leaves open standardized cutoffs across assays and subgroups.
Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is the major cause of death worldwide. Cardiac troponins (cTns) are structural proteins, unique to the heart, that currently form the cornerstone of the AMI diagnosis. The major limitation of standard cTn assays is a sensitivity deficit at presentation caused by a delayed increase of circulating levels. Recent multicenter studies have demonstrated that novel, more sensitive and precise cTn assays improve the early diagnosis of AMI. cTn has to be interpreted as a quantitative variable. The term 'troponin positive' should, therefore, be avoided. 'Detectable' levels will become the norm and have to be clearly differentiated from 'elevated' levels. The differential diagnosis of a small amount of myocardial injury and, therefore, mild elevation of cTn is broad, and includes acute and chronic disorders. The differential diagnosis of a large amount of myocardial injury and, therefore, substantial elevation of cTn is much smaller and largely restricted to AMI, myocarditis and takotsubo cardiomyopathy. The aim of this article is to guide clinicians in the use of sensitive cTn.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Twerenbold et al. (2010) conducted a review in Acute myocardial infarction. Sensitive cardiac troponin assays vs. Standard cardiac troponin assays was evaluated. Novel, sensitive cardiac troponin assays improve the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, requiring clinicians to interpret troponin as a quantitative variable.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: