Why the study?
Does the addition of ischemia-modified albumin (IMA) to standard biomarkers improve the diagnosis of myocardial ischemia in emergency department patients?
Does the addition of ischemia-modified albumin (IMA) to standard biomarkers improve the diagnosis of myocardial ischemia in emergency department patients?
Adding ischemia-modified albumin to standard cardiac biomarkers significantly increases sensitivity and negative predictive value for diagnosing myocardial ischemia in the emergency department.
May improve ED ischemia detection sensitivity; hypothesis-generating from cross-sectional data and should not yet change practice.
We studied the role of ischemia-modified albumin (IMA) with standard biomarkers (myoglobin, creatine kinase-MB [CK-MB], troponin I [TnI]) in assessment of 200 patients with suspected myocardial ischemia admitted to the emergency department. Every case was reviewed by a cardiologist. A clinical diagnosis of ischemia was assigned and correlated with biomarker test results. Of the patients, 25 (13.0%) had myocardial ischemia. Receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrated IMA as highly sensitive but somewhat poorly specific for the presence of ischemia (area under curve, 0.63; P = .01). With a cut point of 90 U/mL, the Albumin Cobalt Binding Test had 80% sensitivity and 31% specificity for diagnosing ischemia and a negative predictive value of 92%. IMA was positive in 4 of 5 patients with electrocardiographic (ECG) evidence of ischemia and 16 of 20 patients with coronary ischemia but negative ECG. Among the same patients, the myoglobin-CK-MB-TnI triad had a sensitivity of 57%. The combination of IMA-myoglobin-CK-MB-TnI increased the sensitivity for detecting ischemia to 97%, with a negative predictive value of 92%. IMA is highly sensitive and has a high negative predictive value, which might improve the usefulness of standard biomarkers of myocardial ischemia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anwaruddin et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: