Why the study?
It was unknown whether criteria defining chronic myocardial injury by cardiac troponin variations of 20% or less are reliable over short intervals used in accelerated diagnostic pathways.
Does an absolute change in cTnT < 3 ng/L improve differentiation of acute from chronic myocardial injury compared to a relative change of ≤ 20% in patients with suspected ACS?
Does an absolute change in cTnT < 3 ng/L improve differentiation of acute from chronic myocardial injury compared to a relative change of ≤ 20% in patients with suspected ACS?
Absolute changes in cardiac troponin T are more reliable than relative changes for differentiating acute from chronic myocardial injury over short intervals in the Emergency Department.
Absolute cTnT changes may reduce misclassification of acute injury versus relative changes in suspected ACS; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
INTRODUCTION: Persistently elevated cardiac troponin (cTn) values are observed in many patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the absence of myocardial infarction and may reflect underlying cardiac disease. Chronic myocardial injury is defined where cTn values are elevated and vary by ≤ 20 % on sequential measurements. We aimed to evaluate whether these criteria are reliable over short intervals applied in accelerated diagnostic pathways. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of a prospective, multi-centre cohort study of patients with suspected ACS, cTnT was measured at presentation, 1, 2 and 6-36 h, and the final diagnosis adjudicated according to the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. Two criteria for chronic myocardial injury were compared: a relative change in cTn of ≤ 20 % and an absolute change < 3 ng/L, and the findings externally validated. RESULTS: At presentation cTnT was elevated in 242 of 1,000 (24 %) patients (73 years, 42 % female), of whom 94/242 (39 %), 13/242 (5 %) and 137/242 (56 %) had myocardial infarction, acute or chronic myocardial injury, respectively. A relative change of ≤ 20 % misclassified 58 % (59/101) and 49 % (48/98) of patients with a final diagnosis of acute myocardial injury or infarction at 1 and 2 h, respectively, whereas an absolute change of < 3 ng/L misclassified 22 % (22/101) and 15 % (15/98). In the validation cohort (n = 621), the relative and absolute change criteria at one hour misclassified 43 % (13/30) and 17 % (5/30) of those with myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic myocardial injury cannot reliably be differentiated from acute myocardial injury or infarction by recommended criteria over short remeasurement intervals in the Emergency Department. Longer intervals between sampling and absolute rather than relative criteria may reduce the risk of misclassification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lindahl et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: