Why the study?
What is the clinical utility of troponin T and troponin I for assessing myocardial injury in pediatric patients?
What is the clinical utility of troponin T and troponin I for assessing myocardial injury in pediatric patients?
Troponin T and I offer highly sensitive and specific means to detect myocardial injury in children, addressing a critical need for monitoring subclinical damage in this population.
May support troponin monitoring in select pediatric scenarios; leaves open routine adoption without prospective pediatric validation.
In this review, we discuss the potential impact of the newly developed and recently clinically available cardiac-specific markers, troponin T, cTnT and troponin I, cTnI, for the pediatric practitioner. Biochemical markers have not been used routinely in this patient population and relatively few studies have been performed to determine the indications for their use or the manner of their interpretation, yet subclinical myocardial damage in children is of considerable clinical significance due to their long life expectancy and future somatic growth. We will begin with a short overview of the history of biochemical markers and then briefly describe the properties and physiologic role of these particular muscle proteins. Salient developments in the use of these markers in adults will be highlighted, including: acute myocardial infarction (AMI), unstable angina pectoris (UA), post-surgical or post-trauma AMI assessment, myocarditis, pre-cardiac transplant screening of organs for suitability. We will relate these to similar pediatric contexts where they exist. Where appropriate, we will discuss situations that are unique to pediatric care, such as neonatal stress monitoring and doxorubicin-induced cardiac injury. Finally, some confounding problems that have arisen are considered and we discuss the manner in which these issues are either being or have been resolved.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ottlinger et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: