Key result
Routine use of LD and LD isoenzymes for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction yielded only 0.8% true positive cases missed by standard criteria and 2.8% false positives.
Why the study?
Does routine measurement of lactate dehydrogenase and its isoenzymes improve the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction compared to standard criteria?
Observational (n=247)
Does routine measurement of lactate dehydrogenase and its isoenzymes improve the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction compared to standard criteria?
Routine use of lactate dehydrogenase and its isoenzymes for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction is not clinically useful, leads to more false positives than correct diagnoses, and incurs unnecessary costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May not support routine LD isoenzyme testing in AMI evaluation; leaves open selective utility in troponin-era cohorts.
Reis et al. (1988) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction (n=247). Lactate dehydrogenase (LD) and LD isoenzymes vs. Creatine kinase and creatine kinase-MB was evaluated on Diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. Routine use of LD and LD isoenzymes for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction yielded only 0.8% true positive cases missed by standard criteria and 2.8% false positives.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: