ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2009
Derivation and validation of a sensitive IMA cutpoint to predict cardiac events in patients with chest pain.
Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Left Ventricular Remodeling after Myocardial Infarction: From Physiopathology to Treatment.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Past, Present, and Future of Blood Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction-Promises and Challenges.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Post-Myocardial Infarction Ventricular Remodeling Biomarkers-The Key Link between Pathophysiology and Clinic.Biomolecules · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn patients with acute chest pain, we derived a cutpoint for ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA) and prospectively validated this cutpoint to predict 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACEs).
methodsWe prospectively recruited a derivation cohort (18-month period) to establish a serum IMA cutpoint targeting 80% sensitivity. This was followed by a prospective validation cohort study of emergency department patients with acute chest pain at two university hospitals over a 3-month period. A MACE was defined as myocardial infarction, revascularisation or death at 30-day follow-up.
resultsIn the derivation cohort of 151 patients, the IMA cutpoint that achieved 80% sensitivity for MACEs was 75 KU/litre. The sensitivity was prospectively validated in 171 patients consecutively enrolled, of whom 106 underwent multiple-biomarker analysis (19.8% MACE rate, 81% sensitivity of IMA). Furthermore, IMA by itself (81%, p<0.01) and in combination with initial highly sensitive cardiac troponin T (hsTnT) (90%, p<0.001) had significantly higher sensitivity than initial hsTnT (29%) for prediction of MACEs.
conclusionsWe prospectively validated the sensitive IMA cutpoint of 75 KU/litre with 80% sensitivity for MACEs in patients with acute chest pain. Our data suggest that IMA alone and in combination with initial hsTnT are more sensitive than the initial hsTnT for MACEs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.