1.
Prognostic value of basal high-sensitive cardiac troponin levels on mortality in the general population: A meta-analysis.
van der Linden, N, Klinkenberg, LJJ, Bekers, O, Loon, LJCV, Dieijen-Visser, MPV, Zeegers, MP, Meex, SJR
Medicine. 2016;(52):e5703
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Interest in the use of cardiac troponin T (cTnT) and cardiac troponin I (cTnI) has expanded from diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction to risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Although cTnT and cTnI were shown to have equivalent diagnostic performance in the setting of suspected acute myocardial infarction, potential prognostic differences are largely unexplored.The aim of this study is to quantify and compare the relationship between cTnT and cTnI, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in the general population.Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (from inception through October 2016) were searched for prospective observational cohort studies reporting on the prognostic value of basal high-sensitive cTnT and/or cTnI levels on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in the general population. Data on study characteristics, participants' characteristics, outcome parameters, and quality [according to the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) "Quality Assessment Tool For Quantitative Studies] were retrieved. Hazard ratios per standard deviation increase in basal cardiac troponin level (HR per 1-SD; retrieved from the included articles or estimated) were pooled using a random-effects model.On a total of 2585 reviewed citations, 11 studies, with data on 65,019 participants, were included in the meta-analysis. Random effects pooling showed significant associations between basal cardiac troponin levels and HR for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality [HR per 1-SD 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI, 1.20-1.38) and HR per 1-SD 1.18 (95% CI, 1.11-1.26), respectively]. Stratified analyses showed higher HRs for cTnT than cTnI [cardiovascular mortality: cTnT HR per 1-SD 1.37 (95% CI, 1.23-1.52); and cTnI HR per 1-SD 1.21 (95% CI, 1.16-1.26); all-cause mortality: cTnT HR per 1-SD 1.31 (955 CI, 1.13-1.53); and cTnI HR per 1-SD 1.14 (95% CI, 1.06-1.22)]. These differences were significant (Pā<ā0.01) in meta-regression analyses for cardiovascular mortality but did not reach statistical significance for all-cause mortality.Elevated, basal cTnT, and cTnI show robust associations with an increased risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality during follow-up in the general population.Systematic review registration number PROSPERO CRD42014006964.
2.
Accuracy of biomarkers to diagnose acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department: a meta-analysis.
Balk, EM, Ioannidis, JP, Salem, D, Chew, PW, Lau, J
Annals of emergency medicine. 2001;(5):478-94
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE We sought to evaluate quantitatively the evidence on the diagnostic performance of presentation and serial biochemical markers for emergency department diagnosis of acute cardiac ischemia (ACI), including acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and unstable angina. METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the English-language literature published between 1966 and December 1998. We examined the diagnostic performance of creatine kinase, creatine kinase-MB, myoglobin, and troponin I and T testing. Diagnostic performance was assessed by using estimates of test sensitivity and specificity and was summarized by summary receiver-operating characteristic curves. RESULTS Only 4 studies were found that evaluated all patients with ACI; 73 were found that focused only on a diagnosis of AMI. To diagnose ACI, presentation biomarker tests had sensitivities of 16% to 19% and specificities of 96% to 100%; serial biomarker tests had sensitivities of 31% to 45% and specificities of 95% to 98%. Considering only the diagnosis of AMI, presentation biomarker tests had summary sensitivities of 37% to 49% and summary specificities of 87% to 97%; serial biomarker tests had summary sensitivities of 79% to 93% and summary specificities of 85% to 96%. Variation of test sensitivity was best explained by test timing. Longer symptom duration or time between serial tests yielded higher sensitivity. CONCLUSION The limited evidence available to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers for ACI suggests that biomarkers have very low sensitivity to diagnose ACI. Thus, biomarkers alone will greatly underdiagnose ACI and will be inadequate to make triage decisions. For AMI diagnosis alone, multiple testing of individual biomarkers over time substantially improves sensitivity, while retaining high specificity, at the expense of additional time. Further high-quality studies are needed on the clinical effect of using biomarkers for patients with ACI in the ED and on optimal timing of serial testing and in combination with other tests.