4.5 Article

Cardiac troponin I levels in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome-The importance of gender

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 168, 期 3, 页码 317-U111

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2014.06.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. Roche Diagnostics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Measurement of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin levels is increasingly used in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). However, studies investigating the distribution and prognostic implications of high-sensitivity troponin levels in men and women separately are currently lacking. Methods Cardiac troponin I (cTnI) levels were determined using a high-sensitivity assay (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL) in 1,677 male and 1,073 female NSTE-ACS patients participating in the GUSTO IV study. The prognostic associations of cTnI to outcome (30-day composite end point of recurrent myocardial infarction and 1-year mortality) were assessed in multivariable models, using cTnI both as a continuous variable and dichotomized at different sets of single and gender-specific 99th percentiles. Results Median cTnI levels were 947 and 175 ng/L in men and women, respectively (P < .001). The adjusted odds ratios for cTnI (ln) were similar in men and women. The adjusted odds ratios for cTnI above the tested 99th percentiles levels in contrast were twice as high in women compared with men. This was a consequence of differences in the cTnI distribution and risk gradients across cTnI levels, in particular due to lower event rates in women without cTnI elevation. Gender-specific cutoffs did not improve risk prediction. Conclusions Despite overall lower levels, cTnI above the tested 99th percentiles exhibited stronger prognostic information in women with NSTE-ACS compared with men. This likely reflects differences in the pathophysiology and the clinical presentation in NSTE-ACS. Our data, thus, emphasize that women with symptoms of unstable coronary artery disease encompass a broader risk panorama than men.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据