Why the study?
It is unclear whether high-sensitivity troponin assays with lower diagnostic thresholds will be too sensitive and lead to increased false positive AMI diagnoses.
Does an elevated cardiac troponin I (cTnI) using contemporary assays accurately predict a clinical diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in real-world practice?
Observational (n=628)
No
Does an elevated cardiac troponin I (cTnI) using contemporary assays accurately predict a clinical diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in real-world practice?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In real-world practice, contemporary troponin I assays demonstrate high sensitivity but poor positive predictive value for AMI, highlighting the frequency of non-ischemic troponin elevations and the need for appropriate clinical risk stratification before testing.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction (n=628). Elevated cardiac troponin I (cTnI >0.040 μg/L) vs. Negative cardiac troponin I was evaluated on Positive predictive value for clinical diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (95% CI 13-29).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: