Nagurney, John Tobias

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.

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.