Why the study?
Does troponin-based diagnosis identify a different risk profile and prognosis in myocardial infarction patients compared to CK-MB-based diagnosis?
Does troponin-based diagnosis identify a different risk profile and prognosis in myocardial infarction patients compared to CK-MB-based diagnosis?
Adopting troponin-based criteria for myocardial infarction increases diagnosis rates by 49% and identifies a higher-risk patient population with worse short-term outcomes compared to CK-MB criteria.
Troponin criteria identify higher-risk MI patients than CK-MB; hypothesis-generating for updated thresholds and long-term management.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of new myocardial infarction definition based on troponin, the rate of myocardial infarction diagnosis, patients characteristics, and short-term prognosis. METHODS: We enrolled 1,255 consecutive myocardial infarction patients from the Kuwait Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes from December 2003 to May 2004. Two patient groups were identified, those diagnosed with elevated creatine kinase-MB (CK group) and those diagnosed with elevated troponin with normal CK-MB (Troponin group). RESULTS: The use of troponin have increased the number of myocardial infarctions by 49%. Compared with the CK group, the Troponin group were older [age 60.3 +/- 12.5 years versus 53.7 +/- 12.2 years, p<0.001], more likely to have diabetes (59% versus 41%, p<0.001), hypertension (59% versus 36%, p<0.001), and hypercholesterolemia (37% versus 24%, p<0.001). The Troponin group were more likely to suffer heart failure at presentation than the CK group (32% versus 14%, p<0.001) and, subsequently, increase incidence of heart failure during their hospital stay (17% versus 8%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: A substantial increase in the rate of myocardial infarction occurred with the adoption of the new diagnostic criteria. The clinical outcome for the additional patients diagnosed was not better than that of patients diagnosed by the old criteria.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zubaid et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: