Cardiac troponin

Caveats and controversies in analysis and interpretation

Ishak A. Mansi, Pratap Reddy, Donna Carden

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To review the caveats and controversies in the interpretation of elevated cardiac troponin (cTn) serum levels as related to European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology recommendations for diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (MI). EPIDEMIOLOGY: Several million patients seek emergency care as a result of chest pain, but only about 10% are subsequently confirmed to have acute MI. The number or patients diagnosed with MI may increase from 40% to 80% according to the setting of the cTn test performed and the details of the assays used. REVIEW SUMMARY: Despite extensive use and validity of cTn in diagnosis of myocardial necrosis, the determinants of cTn release and the patterns of elevation and clearance are subjects of controversy. Other confounding factors are lack of standardization of biomarker assays and disagreement over what constitutes normal vs abnormal results. False-positive results may occur among earlier-generation assays due to cross-reactivity with a variety of other proteins. Finally, elevated cardiac biomarkers secondary to myocardial necrosis do not necessarily equate to acute MI. TYPE OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE: Systematic reviews/meta-analyses, cohort studies (prospective and retrospective), case-control studies, unstructured reviews. GRADE OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE: Fair. CONCLUSION: Although cTn serum levels have diagnostic and prognostic implications, clinical assessment of the patient remains essential to any diagnosis. The cTn level should be used as an assistant to-not a replacement for-informed clinical decision making. Primary care clinicians should know the details of the assays used at their medical institutions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)428-435
Number of pages8
JournalAdvanced Studies in Medicine
Volume5
Issue number8
StatePublished - Sep 1 2005

Fingerprint

Troponin
Myocardial Infarction
Necrosis
Biomarkers
Emergency Medical Services
Serum
Chest Pain
Meta-Analysis
Case-Control Studies
Primary Health Care
Cohort Studies
Proteins

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Cardiac troponin : Caveats and controversies in analysis and interpretation. / Mansi, Ishak A.; Reddy, Pratap; Carden, Donna.

In: Advanced Studies in Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 8, 01.09.2005, p. 428-435.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{2d72dcc547bc41708cbfbe12ecd18efc,
title = "Cardiac troponin: Caveats and controversies in analysis and interpretation",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To review the caveats and controversies in the interpretation of elevated cardiac troponin (cTn) serum levels as related to European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology recommendations for diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (MI). EPIDEMIOLOGY: Several million patients seek emergency care as a result of chest pain, but only about 10{\%} are subsequently confirmed to have acute MI. The number or patients diagnosed with MI may increase from 40{\%} to 80{\%} according to the setting of the cTn test performed and the details of the assays used. REVIEW SUMMARY: Despite extensive use and validity of cTn in diagnosis of myocardial necrosis, the determinants of cTn release and the patterns of elevation and clearance are subjects of controversy. Other confounding factors are lack of standardization of biomarker assays and disagreement over what constitutes normal vs abnormal results. False-positive results may occur among earlier-generation assays due to cross-reactivity with a variety of other proteins. Finally, elevated cardiac biomarkers secondary to myocardial necrosis do not necessarily equate to acute MI. TYPE OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE: Systematic reviews/meta-analyses, cohort studies (prospective and retrospective), case-control studies, unstructured reviews. GRADE OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE: Fair. CONCLUSION: Although cTn serum levels have diagnostic and prognostic implications, clinical assessment of the patient remains essential to any diagnosis. The cTn level should be used as an assistant to-not a replacement for-informed clinical decision making. Primary care clinicians should know the details of the assays used at their medical institutions.",
author = "Mansi, {Ishak A.} and Pratap Reddy and Donna Carden",
year = "2005",
month = "9",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "428--435",
journal = "Johns Hopkins Advanced Studies in Medicine",
issn = "1530-3004",
publisher = "Galen Publishing LLC",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cardiac troponin

T2 - Caveats and controversies in analysis and interpretation

AU - Mansi, Ishak A.

AU - Reddy, Pratap

AU - Carden, Donna

PY - 2005/9/1

Y1 - 2005/9/1

N2 - PURPOSE: To review the caveats and controversies in the interpretation of elevated cardiac troponin (cTn) serum levels as related to European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology recommendations for diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (MI). EPIDEMIOLOGY: Several million patients seek emergency care as a result of chest pain, but only about 10% are subsequently confirmed to have acute MI. The number or patients diagnosed with MI may increase from 40% to 80% according to the setting of the cTn test performed and the details of the assays used. REVIEW SUMMARY: Despite extensive use and validity of cTn in diagnosis of myocardial necrosis, the determinants of cTn release and the patterns of elevation and clearance are subjects of controversy. Other confounding factors are lack of standardization of biomarker assays and disagreement over what constitutes normal vs abnormal results. False-positive results may occur among earlier-generation assays due to cross-reactivity with a variety of other proteins. Finally, elevated cardiac biomarkers secondary to myocardial necrosis do not necessarily equate to acute MI. TYPE OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE: Systematic reviews/meta-analyses, cohort studies (prospective and retrospective), case-control studies, unstructured reviews. GRADE OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE: Fair. CONCLUSION: Although cTn serum levels have diagnostic and prognostic implications, clinical assessment of the patient remains essential to any diagnosis. The cTn level should be used as an assistant to-not a replacement for-informed clinical decision making. Primary care clinicians should know the details of the assays used at their medical institutions.

AB - PURPOSE: To review the caveats and controversies in the interpretation of elevated cardiac troponin (cTn) serum levels as related to European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology recommendations for diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (MI). EPIDEMIOLOGY: Several million patients seek emergency care as a result of chest pain, but only about 10% are subsequently confirmed to have acute MI. The number or patients diagnosed with MI may increase from 40% to 80% according to the setting of the cTn test performed and the details of the assays used. REVIEW SUMMARY: Despite extensive use and validity of cTn in diagnosis of myocardial necrosis, the determinants of cTn release and the patterns of elevation and clearance are subjects of controversy. Other confounding factors are lack of standardization of biomarker assays and disagreement over what constitutes normal vs abnormal results. False-positive results may occur among earlier-generation assays due to cross-reactivity with a variety of other proteins. Finally, elevated cardiac biomarkers secondary to myocardial necrosis do not necessarily equate to acute MI. TYPE OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE: Systematic reviews/meta-analyses, cohort studies (prospective and retrospective), case-control studies, unstructured reviews. GRADE OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE: Fair. CONCLUSION: Although cTn serum levels have diagnostic and prognostic implications, clinical assessment of the patient remains essential to any diagnosis. The cTn level should be used as an assistant to-not a replacement for-informed clinical decision making. Primary care clinicians should know the details of the assays used at their medical institutions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=26044481159&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=26044481159&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

VL - 5

SP - 428

EP - 435

JO - Johns Hopkins Advanced Studies in Medicine

JF - Johns Hopkins Advanced Studies in Medicine

SN - 1530-3004

IS - 8

ER -