Mueller, Christian

Abstract Background Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS), based on measurement of troponin T, is associated with perioperative major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We therefore determined the high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) thresholds associated with 30 day MACE after non-cardiac surgery. Methods We performed a nested biobank cohort study of 4553 patients from the Vascular Events in Non-Cardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) Study. We measured hsTnI (ADVIA Centaur® hsTnI assay) on postoperative days 1 to 3 in patients ≥45 years undergoing non-cardiac surgery. An iterative Cox proportional hazard model determined peak postoperative hsTnI thresholds independently associated with MACE (i.e., death, myocardial infarction occurring on postoperative day 4 or after, non-fatal cardiac arrest, or congestive heart failure) within 30 days after surgery. Results MACE occurred in 89/4545 (2.0%) patients. Peak hsTnI values of <75 ng/L, 75 ng/L to <1000 ng/L, and ≥1000 ng/L were associated with 1.2% (95% CI, 0.9–1.6), 7.1% (95% CI, 4.8–10.5), and 25.9% (95% CI, 16.3–38.4) MACE, respectively. Compared to peak hsTnI <75 ng/L, values 75 ng/L to <1000 ng/L and ≥1000 ng/L were associated with adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) of 4.53 (95% CI, 2.75–7.48) and 16.17 (95% CI, 8.70–30.07), respectively. MACE was observed in 9% of patients with peak hsTnI ≥75 ng/L vs 1% in patients with peak hsTnI <75 ng/L (aHR 5.76; 95% CI, 3.64–9.11). A peak hsTnI ≥75 ng/L was associated with MACE in the presence (aHR 9.35; 95% CI, 5.28–16.55) or absence (aHR 3.99; 95% CI, 2.19–7.25) of ischemic features of myocardial injury. Conclusion A peak postoperative hsTnI ≥75 ng/L was associated with >5-fold increase in the risk of 30 days MACE compared to levels <75 ng/L. This threshold could be used for MINS diagnosis when the ADVIA Centaur hsTnI assay is used. Clinicaltrials.gov Registration Number: NCT00512109.

Background Cardiac troponin (cTn) can be elevated in many patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain but without a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We compared the prognostic significance of cTn in these different populations. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the CHOPIN study, which enrolled patients who presented to the ED with chest pain. Patients were grouped as ACS, non-ACS cardiovascular disease, noncardiac chest pain and chest pain not otherwise specified (NOS). We examined the prognostic ability of cTnI for the clinical endpoints of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; a composite of acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, revascularization, reinfarction, and congestive heart failure and stroke) at 180-day follow-up. Results Among 1982 patients analyzed, 14% had ACS, 21% had non-ACS cardiovascular disease, 31% had a noncardiac diagnosis and 34% had chest pain NOS. cTnI elevation above the 99th percentile was observed in 52, 18, 6 and 7% in these groups, respectively. cTnI elevation was associated with mortality and MACE, and their relationships were more prominent in noncardiac diagnosis and chest pain NOS than in ACS and non-ACS cardiovascular diagnoses for mortality, and in non-ACS patients than in ACS patients for MACE (hazard ratio for doubling of cTnI 1.85, 2.05, 8.26 and 4.14, respectively; P for interaction 0.011 for mortality; 1.04, 1.23, 1.54 and 1.42, respectively; P for interaction <0.001 for MACE). Conclusion In patients presenting to the ED with chest pain, cTnI elevation was associated with a worse prognosis in non-ACS patients than in ACS patients.

Introduction: Copeptin has demonstrated a role in early rule out for acute myocardial infarction in combination with a negative troponin. However, the value of copeptin in patients with a positive troponin is not established. Hypothesis: The addition of a baseline copeptin at chest pain presentation will improve risk stratification in patients with mild troponin elevation. Methods: The multi-center CHOPIN trial enrolled 2071 acute chest pain patients. All subjects with ST segment elevations were excluded from this analysis. Of the remaining patients, 124 had a mildly elevated troponin (defined by < 2x URL) and were included in the study cohort. Baseline cTnI and copeptin levels were drawn on presentation, and another cTnI at 2 hours. Copeptin ≤14 pmol/l and troponin deltas ≤10% from baseline were considered positive. Two independent blinded cardiologists adjudicated AMI diagnosis. The value of a baseline copeptin in this cohort was assessed using AMI incidence, odds ratio, sensitivity, and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: Of the 124 patients in the study cohort, 73 (59%) had an elevated copeptin and an associated AMI incidence of 25% (18 AMIs). The remaining 51 patients (41%) were copeptin negative and diagnosed with 3 AMIs, an incidence of 5.9% (p = 0.006, figure 1). A positive copeptin increased the likelihood of AMI diagnosis with an odds ratio of 5.3 (95% CI: 1.5-19.2). The sensitivity and NPV for AMI were 86% and 94%, both of which were higher than the delta troponin (table 1). When an initial copeptin was combined with the delta troponin the sensitivity and NPV for AMI improved to 100%. Conclusion: Use of copeptin in chest pain patients with mild troponin elevation provides further risk stratification. The combination of copeptin with a delta troponin may aid in earlier AMI rule out in this subset of patients. This approach could be especially relevant as the increasing use of high sensitivity troponin assays leads to greater rates of mild troponin elevations.

Abstract The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has increased awareness that severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) may have profound effects on the cardiovascular system. COVID-19 often affects patients with pre-existing cardiac disease, and may trigger acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), venous thromboembolism (VTE), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and acute heart failure (AHF). However, as COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory infectious disease, there remain substantial uncertainty and controversy whether and how cardiovascular biomarkers should be used in patients with suspected COVID-19. To help clinicians understand the possible value as well as the most appropriate interpretation of cardiovascular biomarkers in COVID-19, it is important to highlight that recent findings regarding the prognostic role of cardiovascular biomarkers in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are similar to those obtained in studies for pneumonia and ARDS in general. Cardiovascular biomarkers reflecting pathophysiological processes involved in COVID-19/pneumonia and its complications have a role evaluating disease severity, cardiac involvement, and risk of death in COVID-19 as well as in pneumonias caused by other pathogens. First, cardiomyocyte injury, as quantified by cardiac troponin concentrations, and haemodynamic cardiac stress, as quantified by natriuretic peptide concentrations, may occur in COVID-19 as in other pneumonias. The level of those biomarkers correlates with disease severity and mortality. Interpretation of cardiac troponin and natriuretic peptide concentrations as quantitative variables may aid in risk stratification in COVID-19/pneumonia and also will ensure that these biomarkers maintain high diagnostic accuracy for AMI and AHF. Second, activated coagulation as quantified by D-dimers seems more prominent in COVID-19 as in other pneumonias. Due to the central role of endothelitis and VTE in COVID-19, serial measurements of D-dimers may help physicians in the selection of patients for VTE imaging and the intensification of the level of anticoagulation from prophylactic to slightly higher or even therapeutic doses.

Abstract The formation of a thrombus in an epicardial artery may result in an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Despite major advances in acute treatment using network approaches to allocate patients to timely reperfusion and optimal antithrombotic treatment, patients remain at high risk for thrombotic complications. Ongoing activation of the coagulation system as well as thrombin-mediated platelet activation may both play a crucial role in this context. Whether measurement of circulating biomarkers of coagulation and fibrinolysis could be useful for risk stratification in secondary prevention is currently not fully understood. In addition, measurement of such biomarkers could be helpful to identify thrombus formation as the leading mechanism for AMI. The introduction of biomarkers of myocardial injury such as high-sensitivity cardiac troponins made rule-out of AMI even more precise. However, elevated markers of myocardial injury cannot provide proof of a type 1 AMI, let alone thrombus formation. The combined measurement of markers of myocardial injury with biomarkers reflecting ongoing thrombus formation might be helpful for the fast and correct diagnosis of an atherothrombotic type 1 AMI. This position paper gives an overview of the current knowledge and possible role of biomarkers of coagulation and fibrinolysis for the diagnosis of AMI, risk stratification, and individualized treatment strategies in patients with AMI.

Background: The observed incidence of type 2 myocardial infarction (T2MI) is expected to increase with the implementation of increasingly sensitive cTn assays. However, it remains to be determined how to diagnose, risk-stratify, and treat patients with T2MI. We aimed to discriminate and risk-stratify T2MI using biomarkers. Methods: Patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain, enrolled in the CHOPIN study (Copeptin Helps in the early detection Of Patients with acute myocardial INfarction), were retrospectively analyzed. Two cardiologists adjudicated type 1 MI (T1MI) and T2MI. The prognostic ability of several biomarkers alone or in combination to discriminate T2MI from T1MI was investigated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The biomarkers analyzed were cTnI, copeptin, MR-proANP (midregional proatrial natriuretic peptide), CT-proET1 (C-terminal proendothelin-1), MR-proADM (midregional proadrenomedullin), and procalcitonin. The prognostic utility of these biomarkers for all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular event (a composite of acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina pectoris, reinfarction, heart failure, and stroke) at 180-day follow-up was also investigated. Results: Among the 2071 patients, T1MI and T2MI were adjudicated in 94 and 176 patients, respectively. Patients with T1MI had higher levels of baseline cTnI, whereas those with T2MI had higher baseline levels of MR-proANP, CT-proET1, MR-proADM, and procalcitonin. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the diagnosis of T2MI was higher for CT-proET1, MR-proADM, and MR-proANP (0.765, 0.750, and 0.733, respectively) than for cTnI (0.631). Combining all biomarkers resulted in a similar accuracy to a model using clinical variables and cTnI (0.854 versus 0.884, P =0.294). Addition of biomarkers to the clinical model yielded the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.917). Other biomarkers, but not cTnI, were associated with mortality and major adverse cardiovascular event at 180 days among all patients, with no interaction between the diagnosis of T1MI or T2MI. Conclusions: Assessment of biomarkers reflecting pathophysiologic processes occurring with T2MI might help differentiate it from T1MI. All biomarkers measured, except cTnI, were significant predictors of prognosis, regardless of the type of myocardial infarction.