ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2023
Rising and Falling High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin in Diagnostic Algorithms for Patients With Suspected Myocardial Infarction.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute Myocardial Injury in Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Secondary Observational Analysis of the FAST Trial.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Trial
- Early Identification of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) at Presentation: Comparative Diagnostic Performance of CBC-Derived Inflammatory Indices and High-Sensitivity Troponin T.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Rising Cardiac Troponin: A Prognostic Biomarker for Mortality After Acute Ischemic Stroke.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background High-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn)-based diagnostic algorithms are recommended for the management of patients with suspected myocardial infarction (MI) without ST elevation. Although mirroring different phases of myocardial injury, falling and rising troponin patterns (FPs and RPs, respectively) are equally considered by most algorithms. We aimed to compare the performance of diagnostic protocols for RPs and FPs, separately. Methods and Results We pooled 2 prospective cohorts of patients with suspected MI and stratified patients to stable, FP, and RP during serial sampling separately for hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT and applied the European Society of Cardiology 0/1- and 0/3-hour algorithms comparing the positive predictive values to rule in MI. Overall, 3523 patients were included in the hs-cTnI study population. The positive predictive value for patients with an FP was significantly reduced compared with patients with an RP (0/1-hour: FP, 53.3% [95% CI, 45.0-61.4] versus RP, 76.9 [95% CI, 71.6-81.7]; 0/3-hour: FP, 56.9% [95% CI, 42.2-70.7] versus RP, 78.1% [95% CI, 74.0-81.8]). The proportion of patients in the observe zone was larger in the FP using 0/1-hour (31.3% versus 55.8%) and 0/3-hour (14.6% versus 38.6%) algorithms. Alternative cutoffs did not improve algorithm performances. Compared with stable hs-cTn, the risk for death or MI was highest in those with an FP (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], hs-cTnI 2.3 [95% CI, 1.7-3.2]; RP adjusted HR, hs-cTnI 1.8 [95% CI, 1.4-2.4]). Findings were similar for hs-cTnT tested in 3647 patients overall. Conclusions The positive predictive value to rule in MI by the European Society of Cardiology 0/1- and 0/3-hour algorithms is significantly lower in patients with FP than RP. These are at highest risk for incident death or MI.
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.