Why the study?
Are serum cTnT levels elevated as a marker of myocardial injury in asphyxiated African neonates compared to healthy controls?
Are serum cTnT levels elevated as a marker of myocardial injury in asphyxiated African neonates compared to healthy controls?
Cardiac troponin T is significantly elevated in asphyxiated African neonates, particularly those delivered by instrumental methods or who died, supporting its use as a marker of myocardial injury in this population.
cTnT elevation was associated with neonatal asphyxia; leaves open its utility as a myocardial injury marker in African infants pending prospective studies.
BACKGROUND: In caucasian newborns, troponin T (cTnT) is a specific marker for myocardial injury in perinatal asphyxia. This is the first such study in negroid neonates. AIMS: To evaluate myocardial injury in a group of asphyxiated African newborns and determine the influence of mode of delivery on cTnT levels. METHODS: Serum cTnT and clinical parameters in 40 asphyxiated and 40 healthy negroid neonatal controls were measured within the first 72 hours of life by chemiluminescence immune-assay. Perinatal asphyxia was assessed by APGAR score. The infants were followed up until discharge or death. RESULTS: Mean (SD) cTnT values were significantly higher in asphyxiated infants [0.03 (0.04) ng/ml] than in healthy controls [0.01 (0.006) ng/ml, P = 0.002]. Asphyxiated infants delivered by forceps and vacuum extraction had significantly higher levels of cTnT [0.04 (0.018) ng/ml] than those born by caesarian section [0.02 (0.008) ng/ml] and by normal delivery [0.03 (0.01) ng/ml, P = 0.003]. cTnT levels were higher in infants who died (P = 0.037). CONCLUSION: In the asphyxiated infants, mean cTnT levels were significantly higher than in controls. They were also significantly higher in those born by vacuum and forceps delivery and asphyxiated infants who died.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sadoh et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: