Troponin-positive, MB-negative patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: An undertreated but high-risk patient group: Results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network-Get With The Guidelines (NCDR ACTION-GWTG) Registry

ArticleinAmerican heart journal 160(5):819-25 · November 2010with6 Reads
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.07.022 · Source: PubMed
Abstract
Despite the 2000 and 2007 redefinition of myocardial infarction (MI), patients who are troponin (Tn) positive ([+]) but MB negative ([-]) may not be considered to have MI, particularly in the absence of known coronary disease (prior MI or revascularization; coronary artery disease [CAD]). How this affects treatment and outcomes has not been well described. Direct arrival patients with non-ST elevation MI (NSTEMI) enrolled in the American College of Cardiology NCDR ACTION-GWTG Registry were included. Patients missing marker data who were Tn (-) and had CAD were excluded. Troponin (+) patients were categorized as MB (+) (n = 11,563) or MB (-) (n = 4,501). Treatments and in-hospital outcomes were compared between the 2 groups using logistic regression. Of the 16,064 NSTEMI patients, 28% were MB (-). The MB (-) patients were older (median age 68 vs 65 years) and had more comorbidities (hypertension 71% vs 66%, diabetes 31% vs 27%, heart failure 22% vs 19%; all Ps < .01). After adjusting for baseline characteristics, MB (-) patients were significantly less likely to receive clopidogrel, antithrombins, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists, or angiography (all Ps < .001). In-hospital mortality was lower in MB (-) patients (3.8% vs 4.9%, P < .01), which remained significant after adjusting for baseline variables (odds ratio 0, 69, 95% CI 0.6-0.9, P = .002). Patients without known CAD who have NSTEMI and are MB (-) have a higher risk profile but are less likely to receive guideline-recommended acute pharmacologic treatment than those who are MB (+). Given the relatively high mortality in this group, increased emphasis on improving quality of care in Tn (+)/MB (-) patients is warranted.
    • "Despite these recommendations , our study shows that the biomarker, particularly troponin level was not routinely measured for patients with AMI in many hospitals with testing capability in 2011. This may hinder diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with NSTEMI, for example, troponin-positive and CK-MB-negative patients have a higher risk profile but are less likely to receive guidelinerecommended acute pharmacologic treatment because of the oversight of clinically meaningful early biomarker abnormalities [29] . Our study suggests that doctors were not selectively avoiding use of biomarker testing according to whether patients presented as STEMI or NSTEMI. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objectives: To describe trends in the availability of biomarker testing in Chinese hospitals and how practice complies with established standards for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Background: Cardiac biomarker testing is standard in high-income countries, but little is known about the availability and use of cardiac biomarker testing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as China. Methods: Based on a nationally representative sample of Chinese hospitals in 2001, 2006 and 2011, we describe the temporal trends and regional differences in the hospital capability and rates of use of cardiac biomarker testing, as well as the variation in use across hospitals with testing capability, for patients labeled with the diagnosis of AMI. Results: We sampled 175 hospitals (162 participated in the study) and 18,631 AMI admissions. 14,370 patients were included in analysis of biomarker use. The proportion of hospitals with biomarker testing capability was 57.4% in 2001 (25.0% troponin and 32.4% creatine kinase MB fraction (CK-MB) only) and 96.3% (81.4% troponin and 14.9%CK-MB only) in 2011. The proportion of hospitals with troponin testing capability in 2011 was significantly higher in urban compared with rural hospitals (96.8% vs. 71.4%, p< 0.001). In 2011, only 55.9%of hospitals with troponin testing capability (71 out of 127 hospitals) used the assay for more than 80% of their patients with AMI. Among hospitals with either biomarker testing capability, there was marked variation in use in both rural (from 7.1% to 100.0% of patients) and urban hospitals (from 57.9%to 100.0% of patients). In 2011, 36.1% of the patients with AMI did not have troponin tested and 4.9% did not have either biomarker measured. Conclusions: The recommended biomarker tests for AMI diagnosis are not universally available and the testing is not consistently applied when it is available in China. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01624883.
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Disclaimer. The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were arrived at after careful consideration of the available evidence at the time they were written. Health professionals are encouraged to take them fully into account when exercising their clinical judgement. The guidelines do not, however, override the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate decisions in the circumstances of the individual patients, in consultation with that patient, and, where appropriate and necessary, the patient's guardian or carer. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the rules and regulations applicable to drugs and devices at the time of prescription.
    Article · Aug 2011
  • Full-text · Article · Nov 2011
Show more