Why the study?
Does high-sensitivity troponin I measurement improve cardiovascular risk prediction in a general middle-aged population?
Does high-sensitivity troponin I measurement improve cardiovascular risk prediction in a general middle-aged population?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
High-sensitivity troponin I is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events in the general population and improves risk stratification beyond standard clinical variables.
AIMS: Our aim was to test the prediction and clinical applicability of high-sensitivity assayed troponin I for incident cardiovascular events in a general middle-aged European population. METHODS AND RESULTS: High-sensitivity assayed troponin I was measured in the Scottish Heart Health Extended Cohort (n = 15 340) with 2171 cardiovascular events (including acute coronary heart disease and probable ischaemic strokes), 714 coronary deaths (25% of all deaths), 1980 myocardial infarctions, and 797 strokes of all kinds during an average of 20 years follow-up. Detection rate above the limit of detection (LoD) was 74.8% in the overall population and 82.6% in men and 67.0% in women. Troponin I assayed by the high-sensitivity method was associated with future cardiovascular risk after full adjustment such as that individuals in the fourth category had 2.5 times the risk compared with those without detectable troponin I (P < 0.0001). These associations remained significant even for those individuals in whom levels of contemporary-sensitivity troponin I measures were not detectable. Addition of troponin I levels to clinical variables led to significant increases in risk prediction with significant improvement of the c-statistic (P < 0.0001) and net reclassification (P < 0.0001). A threshold of 4.7 pg/mL in women and 7.0 pg/mL in men is suggested to detect individuals at high risk for future cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION: Troponin I, measured with a high-sensitivity assay, is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events and might support selection of at risk individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zeller et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: