Key result
Lactate dehydrogenase isoenzyme 1 was the best parameter for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction on the second day after admission, with isoenzyme ratios offering no further improvement.
Why the study?
Does lactate dehydrogenase isoenzyme 1 provide better diagnostic efficiency than isoenzyme ratios for acute myocardial infarction?
Observational (n=117)
Single-blind
Does lactate dehydrogenase isoenzyme 1 provide better diagnostic efficiency than isoenzyme ratios for acute myocardial infarction?
Lactate dehydrogenase isoenzyme 1 alone is the most efficient LDH parameter for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction on the second day of admission, rendering complex isoenzyme ratios unnecessary.
Diagnostic efficiency of lactate dehydrogenase isoenzymes were studied in 117 consecutive patients admitted with some symptoms of acute myocardial infarction. The results of lactate dehydrogenase isoenzyme tests were not available to the physicians, who diagnosed the patients according to criteria based on clinical symptoms, electrocardiographic findings and changes in three serum enzymes. Acute myocardial infarction was diagnosed in 41 patients. The diagnostic efficiency of lactate dehydrogenase isoenzyme 1 and the various ratios between this and the other isoenzymes were compared using receiver operating characteristic curves and logistic discriminant analysis. Lactate dehydrogenase isoenzyme 1 was the best parameter on the second day after admission. On that day, calculating the various ratios between isoenzyme 1 and the other isoenzymes did not improve discrimination.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jensen et al. (1990) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction (n=117). Lactate dehydrogenase isoenzyme 1 vs. Ratios between isoenzyme 1 and other isoenzymes was evaluated on Diagnostic efficiency for acute myocardial infarction. Lactate dehydrogenase isoenzyme 1 was the best parameter for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction on the second day after admission, with isoenzyme ratios offering no further improvement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: