Key result
Patients positive for AMI by only the ESC/ACC criteria had an intermediate risk for AMI or death at 1 year compared to those positive by both criteria and those negative by both.
Why the study?
Does reclassification of acute myocardial infarction using ESC/ACC criteria with cardiac troponin I compared to WHO criteria stratify risk for mortality and recurrent AMI in emergency department patients with suspected cardiac ischemia?
Cohort (n=448)
Does reclassification of acute myocardial infarction using ESC/ACC criteria with cardiac troponin I compared to WHO criteria stratify risk for mortality and recurrent AMI in emergency department patients with suspected cardiac ischemia?
In a troponin-naive population, patients diagnosed with AMI solely by ESC/ACC troponin criteria have an intermediate prognosis compared to those meeting both WHO and ESC/ACC criteria and those meeting neither.
May identify intermediate-risk patients via ESC/ACC troponin criteria alone; leaves open impact on management or outcomes.
BACKGROUND: In a population originally classified for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) by the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, we compared the health outcomes after retrospectively reclassifying with the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology (ESC/ACC) AMI definition, using the peak cardiac troponin I (cTnI) concentrations. The health outcomes were based on the WHO definition and occurred in an era that preceded the use of cardiac troponin biomarkers. METHODS: For 448 patients who presented to the emergency department with symptoms suggestive of cardiac ischemia in 1996, we obtained data for all-cause mortality and recurrent AMI for up to 1 year after the initial presentation. We performed retrospective analysis of the patients' frozen plasma samples to measure cTnI (AccuTnI, Beckman Coulter). RESULTS: At 30, 120, and 360 days, the risk for AMI/death in patients positive for AMI by only the ESC/ACC criteria was significantly lower than the risk in patients positive by both ESC/ACC and WHO criteria, and significantly higher than in patients negative according to both criteria. In a separate analysis, patients with a peak cTnI>0.10 microg/L were at greater risk for AMI/death than patients with cTnI concentrations of 0.04-0.10 microg/L. Patients negative by both definitions or with peak cTnI concentrations<0.04 microg/L had the highest event-free survival rates (92% and 94%, respectively) at 1 year. CONCLUSION: In a troponin-naïve population, patients classified as positive for AMI by only the ESC/ACC criteria have a prognosis that appears to be intermediate between those classified positive by both the WHO and ESC/ACC definitions and those who meet neither criteria.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kavsak et al. (2006) conducted a cohort in Symptoms suggestive of cardiac ischemia (n=448). ESC/ACC AMI definition vs. WHO AMI definition was evaluated on All-cause mortality and recurrent AMI. Patients positive for AMI by only the ESC/ACC criteria had an intermediate risk for AMI or death at 1 year compared to those positive by both criteria and those negative by both.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: