Key result
Diagnostic troponin use is linked to a ~14% increase in AMI hospitalizations.
Why the study?
To analyze how changing diagnostic criteria for acute myocardial infarction and introducing troponin as a diagnostic marker affected hospitalization rates and mortality from 1994 to 2001.
Does the introduction of troponin as a diagnostic marker affect the hospitalization rate and mortality of patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Population
Patients (>=30 years) admitted for their first AMI in Denmark
Comparison
Hospitalization and mortality before vs after changes in AMI diagnostic criteria and troponin introduction
Design
National registry-based observational study
Follow-up
28 days
Authors
Loading...
Diagnostic shifts from troponin may artifactually reduce reported AMI rates; leaves open accurate interpretation of incidence trends without standardized criteria.
Observational
Yes
Does the introduction of troponin as a diagnostic marker affect the hospitalization rate and mortality of patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Relative Risk: 1.14 (95% CI 1.11–1.18)
The introduction of troponin as a diagnostic marker for AMI significantly increased reported hospitalization rates but did not affect the steadily declining 28-day mortality.
Abildstrøm et al. (2004) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Use of troponin as a diagnostic marker vs. Before introduction of troponin was evaluated on Hospitalization rate (rate ratio 1.14, 95% CI 1.11-1.18). The use of troponin as a diagnostic marker was associated with a 14% increase in the hospitalization rate for acute myocardial infarction (rate ratio 1.14; 95% CI 1.11-1.18).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: