Why the study?
The predictive value of cardiac troponins in stable coronary artery disease had not been fully investigated.
Do rising or detectable cardiac troponins predict adverse clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Do rising or detectable cardiac troponins predict adverse clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Rising or detectable cardiac troponins in stable coronary artery disease are associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes, including mortality, MI, and heart failure, in a dose-response manner.
Rising or detectable cTns may aid risk stratification in stable CAD; confirms prognostic associations across mortality, MI, and HF.
Background: Predictive value of cardiac tropnins (cTns) in stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) has not been fully investigated.Methods: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the dose–response relationship between serum detectable/rising cTns and adverse clinical outcomes, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF) or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in SCAD.Results: Sixteen studies involved 34,854 subjects were included. Compared with patients with negative/undetectable cTns, those with rising/detectable cTns were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, CV mortality, MI, HF and MACEs [the hazard ratio (HR) was 1.83 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61–2.08), 2.11 (1.80–2.48), 1.43 (1.26–1.62), 2.36 (1.97–2.83) and 1.99 (1.57–2.53), respectively]. Dose–response analysis have revealed that per 1-SD increment of cTnT was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, CV mortality, MI, HF and MACEs [the HR was 1.78 (1.20–2.63), 1.62 (1.41–1.85), 1.26 (1.12–1.42), 1.78 (1.17–2.69) and 1.26 (1.00–1.59), respectively].Conclusion: Rising/detectable cTns was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, CV mortality, MI, HF and MACEs in SCAD in a dose–response manner.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: