Why the study?
Does elevated cardiac troponin increase the risk of 1-year all-cause death in patients with acute heart failure treated in the emergency department?
Does elevated cardiac troponin increase the risk of 1-year all-cause death in patients with acute heart failure treated in the emergency department?
Elevated conventional cardiac troponin in the emergency department is a strong predictor of 1-year mortality in patients with acute heart failure, whereas mild elevations in high-sensitivity troponin T may not impact outcomes.
May aid ED risk stratification in acute HF; extends observational troponin data but leaves practice change open.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the use of different cardiac troponin (cTn) immunoassays and the prognostic value of increased cTn values in patients diagnosed with acute heart failure (AHF) in the emergency department (ED). METHOD: The epidemiology acute heart failure emergency-TROPonin in acute heart failure2 (EAHFE-TROPICA2) is a retrospective study including patients with AHF admitted in 34 Spanish EDs with cTn values determined in the ED. We studied the prevalence of elevated troponin (value above the established reference limit) for the different types of troponin. We also assessed crude and adjusted primary (1-year all-cause death) and secondary (30 d ED revisit due to AHF) outcomes for every type of cTn and different magnitudes of troponin elevation. RESULTS: We analysed 4705 episodes of AHF. Troponin was elevated in 48.4% of the cases (25.3% in cTnI, 37.9% in cTnT and 82.2% in hs-cTnT). Mortality at one year was higher in patients with elevated troponin (adjusted HR 1.61; CI 95% 1.38-1.88) regardless of the type of cTn determined. Elevated troponin was not related to ED revisit within 30 d after discharge (1.01; 0.87-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: The use of conventional troponin in the ED is useful to predict one-year mortality in patients with AHF. Highly sensitive cTnT (hs-cTnT) elevations less than double the reference value have no impact on patient outcome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jacob et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: