Citations

Abstract Background: In a population originally classified for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) by the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, we compared the health outcomes after retrospectively reclassifying with the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology (ESC/ACC) AMI definition, using the peak cardiac troponin I (cTnI) concentrations. The health outcomes were based on the WHO definition and occurred in an era that preceded the use of cardiac troponin biomarkers. Methods: For 448 patients who presented to the emergency department with symptoms suggestive of cardiac ischemia in 1996, we obtained data for all-cause mortality and recurrent AMI for up to 1 year after the initial presentation. We performed retrospective analysis of the patients’ frozen plasma samples to measure cTnI (AccuTnI®, Beckman Coulter). Results: At 30, 120, and 360 days, the risk for AMI/death in patients positive for AMI by only the ESC/ACC criteria was significantly lower than the risk in patients positive by both ESC/ACC and WHO criteria, and significantly higher than in patients negative according to both criteria. In a separate analysis, patients with a peak cTnI >0.10 μg/L were at greater risk for AMI/death than patients with cTnI concentrations of 0.04–0.10 μg/L. Patients negative by both definitions or with peak cTnI concentrations <0.04 μg/L had the highest event-free survival rates (92% and 94%, respectively) at 1 year. Conclusion: In a troponin-naïve population, patients classified as positive for AMI by only the ESC/ACC criteria have a prognosis that appears to be intermediate between those classified positive by both the WHO and ESC/ACC definitions and those who meet neither criteria.

Abstract Background: The American Heart Association (AHA) case definition for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) requires an “adequate set” of biomarkers: 2 measurements of the same marker at least 6 h apart. A sensitive troponin assay might detect significant changes in concentration earlier. We determined AMI prevalence, using protocols with shorter intervals between measurements, with and without incorporating the time from onset of symptoms. Methods: The AHA case definition was used to retrospectively assign a diagnosis in 258 patients presenting to the emergency department with symptoms of cardiac ischemia. AMI was diagnosed if either specimen in an adequate set had a cardiac troponin I (cTnI) above the 99th percentile (AccuTnI® >0.04 μg/L; Beckman Coulter) with a ≥20% change in concentration between specimens. We assessed positivity for AMI after progressively decreasing the time interval between specimens in specimen sets. In addition, for each patient, 2 additional specimen pairs were selected: pairs collected at least 1 h apart with 1 specimen being either ≥3 h after onset or ≥6 h after onset. Results: When we used the AHA definition, the AMI prevalence was 35.7%. Prevalence was not significantly diminished when the interval between specimens was ≥5, ≥4, or ≥3 h (36.4%, 34.5%, and 33.7%, respectively) compared with the AHA ≥6 h interval. When the time from onset of symptoms was included in the specimen selection algorithm, a 1-h interval was sufficient provided that at least one specimen was collected ≥6 h after onset (prevalence, 34.1%; P = 0.48 vs AHA definition). Conclusion: A sensitive cTnI assay in specimen sets with time intervals ≥3 h, or having one specimen ≥6 h after onset, gave an AMI prevalence equivalent to the AHA definition.