| 1. |
- Mair, Johannes, et al.
(författare)
-
Editor's Choice-What to do when you question cardiac troponin values
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD. - 2048-8726 .- 2048-8734. ; 7:6, s. 577-586
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- High-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays enable cardiac troponin measurement with a high degree of analytical sensitivity and a low level of analytical imprecision at the low measuring range. One of the most important advantages of these new assays is that they allow novel, more rapid approaches for ruling in or ruling out acute myocardial infarctions. The increase in the early diagnostic sensitivity of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays comes at the cost of a reduced acute myocardial infarction specificity of the biomarker, because more patients with other causes of acute or chronic myocardial injury without overt myocardial ischaemia are detected than with previous cardiac troponin assays. Increased troponin concentrations that do not fit with the clinical presentation are seen in the daily routine, mainly as a result of a variety of pathologies, and if tested in the same sample, even discrepancies between high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I and troponin T test results may sometimes be found as well. In addition, analytically false-positive test results occasionally may occur since no assay is perfect. In this review, we summarise the biochemical, pathophysiological and analytical background of the work-up for such a clinical setting.
|
|
| 2. |
- Mair, Johannes, et al.
(författare)
-
Will sacubitril-valsartan diminish the clinical utility of B-type natriuretic peptide testing in acute cardiac care?
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2048-8726 .- 2048-8734. ; 6:4, s. 321-328
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Since the approval of sacubitril-valsartan for the treatment of chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, a commonly raised suspicion is that a wider clinical use of this new drug may diminish the clinical utility of B-type natriuretic peptide testing as sacubitril may interfere with B-type natriuretic peptide clearance. In this education paper we critically assess this hypothesis based on the pathophysiology of the natriuretic peptide system and the limited published data on the effects of neprilysin inhibition on natriuretic peptide plasma concentrations in humans. As the main clinical application of B-type natriuretic peptide testing in acute cardiac care is and will be the rapid rule-out of suspected acute heart failure there is no significant impairment to be expected for B-type natriuretic peptide testing in the acute setting. However, monitoring of chronic heart failure patients on sacubitril-valsartan treatment with B-type natriuretic peptide testing may be impaired. In contrast to N-terminal-proBNP, the current concept that the lower the B-type natriuretic peptide result in chronic heart failure patients, the better the prognosis during treatment monitoring, may no longer be true.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Mueller, Christian, et al.
(författare)
-
Use of copeptin for rapid rule-out of acute myocardial infarction
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2048-8726 .- 2048-8734. ; 7:6, s. 570-576
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Copeptin is currently understood as a quantitative marker of endogenous stress. It rises rapidly in multiple acute disorders including acute myocardial infarction. As a single variable, it has only modest diagnostic accuracy for acute myocardial infarction. However, the use of copeptin within a dual-marker strategy together with conventional cardiac troponin increases the diagnostic accuracy and particularly the negative predictive value of cardiac troponin alone for acute myocardial infarction. The rapid rule-out of acute myocardial infarction is the only application in acute cardiac care mature enough to merit consideration for routine clinical care. However, the dual-marker approach seems to provide only very small incremental value when used in combination with sensitive or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays. This review aims to update and educate regarding the potential and the procedural details, as well as the caveats and challenges of using copeptin in clinical practice.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Vargas, Kris G, et al.
(författare)
-
Variations on classification of main types of myocardial infarction : a systematic review and outcome meta-analysis
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Clinical Research in Cardiology. - : Springer. - 1861-0684 .- 1861-0692. ; 108:7, s. 749-762
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: Classifying myocardial infarction into type 1 (T1MI) or type 2 (T2MI) remains a challenge in clinical practice. We aimed to identify factors contributing to variation in the classifications of MI into type 1 or type 2. In addition, pooled analyses of long-term mortality and reinfarction outcomes were performed.METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase and Web of Science through January 2018 for observational studies or clinical trials classifying patients as either T1MI or T2MI. Studies with baseline characteristics allowing a comparison between both groups were included. Inverse variance random-effects models were used to pool risk ratios (RR).RESULTS: Overall, 93,194 patients from 20 included observational studies were classified as T1MI and 9291 as T2MI; corresponding to 87.9% and 8.8% of all patients diagnosed with MI. Inclusion of ST-elevation MI patients was inconsistent among studies. Coronary angiography was performed in 77.7% and 31.5% of all patients with T1MI and T2MI, respectively. From a subgroup of 11 studies, percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 79.2% of all patients classified as T1MI (range 44.2-93.0%) and 40.2% of all T2MI patients (range 0-87.5%). A meta-analysis of 6 studies (44,366 in total) on 2-year mortality showed worse outcome among T2MI patients (RR: 1.52, CI 1.07-2.17, P = 0.02; I2 = 92%). Risk of reinfarction at 1.6 years was higher among T2MI patients (RR: 1.68, CI 1.22-2.31, P = 0.001; I2 = 9%).CONCLUSIONS: Classification of T1MI and T2MI varies widely among studies. A standardized approach with clear definitions is needed to avoid misclassification and ensure appropriate patient management.
|
|
