How to Interpret Elevated Cardiac Troponin Levels
2011; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 124; Issue: 21 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/circulationaha.111.023697
ISSN1524-4539
AutoresVinay S. Mahajan, Petr Jarolı́m,
Tópico(s)Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
ResumoHomeCirculationVol. 124, No. 21How to Interpret Elevated Cardiac Troponin Levels Free AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissionsDownload Articles + Supplements ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toSupplemental MaterialFree AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBHow to Interpret Elevated Cardiac Troponin Levels Vinay S. Mahajan, MD, PhD and Petr Jarolim, MD, PhD Vinay S. MahajanVinay S. Mahajan From the Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. and Petr JarolimPetr Jarolim From the Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Originally published22 Nov 2011https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.023697Circulation. 2011;124:2350–2354Cardiac troponin (cTn) testing is an essential component of the diagnostic workup and management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Although over the past 15 years the diagnostic performance of the previous gold-standard assay, creatine kinase-MB, has not changed appreciably, the ever-increasing sensitivity of cTn assays has had a dramatic impact on the use of cTn testing to diagnose ACS.1 Here, we present 3 recent clinical cases from the emergency department with acute chest discomfort that exemplify the challenges introduced by high-sensitivity cTn assays: a 48-year-old man who presented to the emergency department with chest discomfort lasting 2 hours and a 3-day history of flu-like symptoms whose ECG showed diffuse ST-segment changes, a 60-year-old woman with a medical history of heart failure who presented to the emergency department with chest pain lasting 1.5 hours whose ECG was nondiagnostic, and a 54-year-old man with a medical history of diabetes mellitus who presented with chest discomfort lasting 1 hour whose ECG was normal.Cardiac troponin I (cTnI) testing (TnI-Ultra assay on the ADVIA Centaur XP immunoanalyzer, both Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics) was ordered on all 3 patients. The laboratory results were reported as positive in all 3 cases, with the reported values being 0.05, 0.06, and 0.06 ng/mL, respectively, all just above the diagnostic limit of 0.04 ng/mL.Assays for cTn, namely cTnI and cardiac troponin T (cTnT), are the preferred diagnostic tests for ACS, in particular non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, because of the tissue-specific expression of cTnI and cTnT in the myocardium. The results of cTn testing often guide the decision for coronary intervention. However, although the increasing sensitivity of cTn assays lowers the number of potentially missed ACS diagnoses, it presents a diagnostic challenge because the gains in diagnostic sensitivity have inevitably come with a decrease in specificity. For instance, the replacement of the cTn assay (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics) by the more sensitive TnI-UItra assay in the Brigham and Women's Hospital Clinical Laboratories in early 2007 resulted in a doubling of positive cTn results in samples collected in the emergency department2 even though there was no change in the frequency of final diagnoses of ACS.What Is a High-Sensitivity Troponin Test?Rapid advances in immunoassay technologies and the international adoption of traceable troponin calibration standards have allowed manufacturers to develop and calibrate troponin assays with unprecedented analytic sensitivity and precision. Thus, a contemporary cTnI assay such as TnI-Ultra detects plasma cTn levels as low as 0.006 ng/mL with an assay range that spans 4 orders of magnitude (0.006–50 ng/mL). Similarly, the limit of detection of a contemporary cTnT assay (Elecsys TnT-hs, Roche Diagnostics; approved for clinical use in Europe but not yet in the United States) is as low as 0.005 ng/mL.3 Although cTnI and cTnT concentrations correlate to some extent, the numeric values can be quite different in a given patient, with cTnT readings generally being lower. Between 1995 and 2007, the limit of detection fell from 0.5 ng/mL for some cTn assays to 0.006 ng/mL for TnI-Ultra, an ≈100-fold improvement in analytic sensitivity (Figure 1).Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 1. Evolution of the cardiac troponin (cTn) assays and their diagnostic cutoffs. A hypothetical case of acute coronary syndrome is depicted with the earliest times of potential diagnosis corresponding to the diagnostic cutoffs of more sensitive cTn assays. The years correspond to the availability of the respective assays in the US market.Remarkably, the use of contemporary high-sensitivity cTn assays makes it possible to detect low levels of cTn even in plasma from healthy subjects. Indeed, high-sensitivity cTn assays are designated as such on the basis of their ability to detect cTns even in healthy individuals. The latest generation of high-sensitivity cTn assays can detect cTn in >95% of a reference population.4 The ability to detect cTns in healthy individuals made it imperative to define a clinical decision limit for cTn concentration, ie, a "positive" cTn result.What Is a Positive Troponin Result? The 99th Percentile RuleThe National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry issued a guideline in 2007 that stated that "in the presence of a clinical history suggestive of ACS, the following is considered indicative of myocardial necrosis consistent with myocardial infarction: maximal concentration of cTn exceeding the 99th percentile of values (with optimal precision defined by total c.v. [coefficient of variation] <10%) for a reference control group on at least one occasion during the first 24 hours after the clinical event."5 This guideline provides the framework for determining the decision limit or a "positive" troponin result.Based on the 99th percentile rule, troponin decision limits of several high-sensitivity cTn assays can be set as low as 0.01 ng/mL.6 This makes it possible to identify patients with ACS earlier, enabling earlier coronary intervention (Figure 2). However, while improving clinical sensitivity for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction, the increased analytic sensitivity has come at the cost of reduced specificity, thus presenting an additional diagnostic challenge for clinicians.Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 2. Cardiac troponin I (cTnI) levels in a healthy reference population and in an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) population. Top, Frequency histograms of real TnI levels (blue filled) in healthy reference controls are shown, along with the distribution of the same TnI levels as measured with a less precise cTnI (green) and the more precise TnI-Ultra (blue) assay for comparison. In practice, the values below the assay detection threshold (dashed portions of the histogram plots) cannot be distinguished from one another. Note how the 99th percentile decision limits decrease with increased assay precision. Bottom, Hypothetical frequency histograms of cTnI concentrations in individuals with ACS <2, 2 to 3, or 3 to 4 hours after the onset of symptoms. The decision limits (dashed vertical lines) for the contemporary high-sensitivity cTnI assays are based on the 99th percentile in a healthy reference population. Note the impact of decreased diagnostic cutoffs of the newer cTnI assays on the fraction of acute myocardial infarctions diagnosed at earlier time intervals. (All frequency histograms in this figure are hypothetical and for illustrative purposes only.)The Specificity of a Troponin Test for ACSThe use of the 99th percentile cutoff for cTn positivity does not imply that 1% of the population suffers from myocardial damage. Rather, this cutoff is useful only when applied to patients with a high pretest probability of ACS. The clinician must interpret cTn results in the context of clinical history, ECG findings, and possibly cardiac imaging to establish the correct diagnosis. A positive troponin in the setting of a low pretest probability for ACS may be suggestive but clearly is not indicative of a coronary event. Unfortunately, the pressure to avoid malpractice litigation forces many clinicians to order comprehensive panels of laboratory tests, including cTn, for patients with a very low pretest probability of ACS, which adversely affects the positive predictive value of cTn assays for diagnosing myocardial infarction.Traditional wisdom, before the advent of high-sensitivity cTn assays, held that troponins do not appear in the circulation of individuals with a healthy myocardium. These levels used to be considered indicative of myocardial necrosis. However, with high-sensitivity troponin assays, circulating cTnT or cTnI can be found in the plasma as a result of transient ischemic or inflammatory myocardial injury. Thus, elevated cTn may be detected in conditions other than ACS (the Table), including heart failure, cardiomyopathies, myocarditis, renal failure, tachyarrhythmias, and pulmonary embolism, and even after strenuous exercise in healthy individuals.8Table. Causes of Elevated Plasma Cardiac Troponin Other Than Acute Coronary SyndromesCardiac CausesNoncardiac CausesCardiac contusion resulting from traumaPulmonary embolismCardiac surgerySevere pulmonary hypertensionCardioversionRenal failureEndomyocardial biopsyStroke, subarachnoid hemorrhageAcute and chronic heart failureInfiltrative diseases, eg, amyloidosisAortic dissectionCardiotoxic drugsAortic valve diseaseCritical illnessHypertrophic cardiomyopathySepsisTachyarrhythmiaExtensive burnsBradyarrhythmia, heart blockExtreme exertionApical ballooning syndromePost–percutaneous coronary interventionRhabdomyolysis with myocyte necrosisMyocarditis or endocarditis/pericarditisAdapted from Jaffe et al7 with permission of the publisher. Copyright © 2006, Elsevier.The Need for Serial Troponin TestingIn addition to the absolute level of cTn in plasma or serum above the decision limit, a critical component of the diagnosis of ACS is cTn kinetics. This was reiterated in the current universal definition of myocardial infarction adopted in 2007.5 Although absolute cTn elevations are seen in multiple chronic cardiac and noncardiac conditions, a rise or fall in serial cTn levels strongly supports an acutely evolving cardiac injury such as, most commonly, acute myocardial infarction.Serial cTn testing helped establish final diagnoses in our 3 patients. Patient 1 (Figure 3, top) had a steady but relatively slow increase in cTnI with a peak value of 0.9 ng/mL. The findings of acute dilated cardiomyopathy and global ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography were consistent with a diagnosis of acute myocarditis.Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 3. Troponin kinetics in the index cases. Plasma cardiac troponin I (cTnI) values in the 3 index cases. The cutoff for the TnI assay (0.04 ng/mL) is indicated with a dashed horizontal line. See the text for detailed description.Patient 2 (Figure 3, middle) had modest cTn elevations fluctuating just above the decision limit in the 0.05 to 0.09 ng/mL range. She was diagnosed with acutely decompensated heart failure. Additional TnI testing did not provide evidence of ACS.TnI levels in patient 3 (Figure 3, bottom) rose to a peak of 53 ng/mL within 24 hours. He was diagnosed with non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction when the second cTn result of 6.3 ng/mL was obtained after 6 hours. The rapid, steep increase from the initial barely positive value of 0.06 ng/mL to the 6-hour value of 6.3 ng/mL illustrates that more frequent testing during the first several hours may be sufficient to detect a diagnostic rise in cTn levels that is eventually destined to increase by a few orders of magnitude such as the peak of 53 ng/mL in this patient.Fortunately, simultaneous improvements in contemporary assay sensitivity and precision allow 2 cTn values with a difference as small as a few hundredths of 1 ng/mL to be distinguished reliably. This has significant implications for serial cTn testing.Previously, clinicians often had to wait an average of 6 hours with the lower-sensitivity, lower-precision cTn assays to see a conclusive increase in plasma cTn levels after the first troponin measurement, but today's high-sensitivity cTn tests that are separated by a mere 2 to 3 hours can be highly informative. Given the urgent need for early diagnosis of ACS and appropriate emergency intervention, as well as the ease of performing this relatively inexpensive assay, clinicians do not need to wait 6 to 8 hours before ordering a second troponin test to rule in ACS. We recommend collecting a second specimen for cTn testing within 2 to 3 hours from the collection of the blood sample at presentation to help confirm the diagnosis of MI.ConclusionsCommenting on the ever-increasing sensitivity and decreasing specificity of cTn assays, Robert Jesse quipped, "When troponin was a lousy assay it was a great test, but now that it's becoming a great assay, it's getting to be a lousy test."9 However, frequent monitoring of cTn kinetics, along with careful attention to the noncoronary causes of cTn elevations, will keep the high-sensitivity cTn assays in the class where they rightfully belong—among the greatest, most useful assays in clinical chemistry laboratories.DisclosuresDr Jarolim has research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Inc, and Amgen, as well as honoraria from Ortho Clinical Diagnostics and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Mahajan reports no conflicts.FootnotesCorrespondence to Petr Jarolim, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115. E-mail [email protected]orgReferences1. Melanson SEF, Morrow DA, Jarolim P. Earlier detection of myocardial injury in a preliminary evaluation using a new troponin I assay with improved sensitivity. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007; 128:282–286.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Melanson SEF, Conrad MJ, Mosammaparast N, Jarolim P. Implementation of a highly sensitive cardiac troponin I assay: test volumes, positivity rates and interpretation of results. Clin Chim Acta. 2008; 395:57–61.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Saenger AK, Beyrau R, Braun S, Cooray R, Dolci A, Freidank H, Giannitsis E, Gustafson S, Handy B, Katus H, Melanson SE, Panteghini M, Venge P, Zorn M, Jarolim P, Bruton D, Jarausch J, Jaffe AS. Multicenter analytical evaluation of a high-sensitivity troponin T assay. Clin Chim Acta. 2011; 412:748–754.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Apple FS. A new season for cardiac troponin assays: it's time to keep a scorecard. Clin Chem. 2009; 55:1303–1306.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, White HD, Jaffe AS, Apple FS, Galvani M, Katus HA, Newby LK, Ravkilde J, Chaitman B, Clemmensen PM, Dellborg M, Hod H, Porela P, Underwood R, Bax JJ, Beller GA, Bonow R, Van der Wall EE, Bassand JP, Wijns W, Ferguson TB, Steg PG, Uretsky BF, Williams DO, Armstrong PW, Antman EM, Fox KA, Hamm CW, Ohman EM, Simoons ML, Poole-Wilson PA, Gurfinkel EP, Lopez-Sendon JL, Pais P, Mendis S, Zhu JR, Wallentin LC, Fernández-Avilés F, Fox KM, Parkhomenko AN, Priori SG, Tendera M, Voipio-Pulkki LM, Vahanian A, Camm AJ, De Caterina R, Dean V, Dickstein K, Filippatos G, Funck-Brentano C, Hellemans I, Kristensen SD, McGregor K, Sechtem U, Silber S, Tendera M, Widimsky P, Zamorano JL, Morais J, Brener S, Harrington R, Morrow D, Lim M, Martinez-Rios MA, Steinhubl S, Levine GN, Gibler WB, Goff D, Tubaro M, Dudek D, Al-Attar N. Universal definition of myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2007; 116:2634–2653.LinkGoogle Scholar6. Apple FS, Parvin CA, Buechler KF, Christenson RH, Wu AHB, Jaffe AS. Validation of the 99th percentile cutoff independent of assay imprecision (CV) for cardiac troponin monitoring for ruling out myocardial infarction. Clin Chem. 2005; 51:2198–2200.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Jaffe AS, Babuin L, Apple FS. Biomarkers in acute cardiac disease: the present and the future. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48:1–11.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Mingels AMA, Jacobs LHJ, Kleijnen VW, Laufer EM, Winkens B, Hofstra L, Wodzig WK, van Dieijen-Visser MP. Cardiac troponin T elevations, using highly sensitive assay, in recreational running depend on running distance. Clin Res Cardiol. 2010; 99:385–391.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Jesse RL. On the relative value of an assay versus that of a test: a history of troponin for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55:2125–2128.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Toma K, Oishi K, Iitani K, Arakawa T and Mitsubayashi K (2022) Surface plasmon-enhanced fluorescence immunosensor for monitoring cardiac troponin I, Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 10.1016/j.snb.2022.132132, 368, (132132), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2022. Agrawal A, Chauhan A, Shetty M, P G, Gupta M and Gupta A (2022) ECG-iCOVIDNet: Interpretable AI model to identify changes in the ECG signals of post-COVID subjects, Computers in Biology and Medicine, 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105540, 146, (105540), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2022. Gabriunaite I, Valiuniene A, Ramanavicius S and Ramanavicius A (2022) Biosensors Based on Bio-Functionalized Semiconducting Metal Oxides, Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry, 10.1080/10408347.2022.2088226, (1-16) Cabot R, Rosenberg E, Dudzinski D, Baggett M, Tran K, Sgroi D, Shepard J, McDonald E, Corpuz T, Arya P, Westra S, Benavidez O, Natter M and Murali M (2022) Case 17-2022: A 17-Year-Old Boy with Chest Pain, New England Journal of Medicine, 10.1056/NEJMcpc1909620, 386:23, (2222-2231), Online publication date: 9-Jun-2022. Afrin H, Salazar C, Kazi M, Ahamad S, Alharbi M and Nurunnabi M (2022) Methods of screening, monitoring and management of cardiac toxicity induced by chemotherapeutics, Chinese Chemical Letters, 10.1016/j.cclet.2022.01.011, 33:6, (2773-2782), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2022. Ahn S, Kim H, Lee W, Chun S and Min W (2022) Effect of Outlier Elimination on the 99th Percentile Upper Reference Limits of High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin I Assays Based on a Strictly Selected Healthy Reference Population, Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 10.3343/alm.2022.42.3.331, 42:3, (331-341), Online publication date: 1-May-2022. Kim K, Wee K, Kim C, Hur D, Lee J and Yoo Y (2022) Rapid and low-cost, and disposable electrical sensor using an extended gate field-effect transistor for cardiac troponin I detection, Biomedical Engineering Letters, 10.1007/s13534-022-00219-x, 12:2, (197-203), Online publication date: 1-May-2022. Kim B and Park J (2022) Role of biomarkers in the heart failure clinic, Kosin Medical Journal, 10.7180/kmj.22.019, 37:1, (4-17), Online publication date: 31-Mar-2022. Zhou J, Wen T, Li Q, Chen Z, Peng X, Wei C, Wei Y, Peng J, Zhang W and Koundal D (2022) Single-Cell Sequencing Revealed Pivotal Genes Related to Prognosis of Myocardial Infarction Patients, Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 10.1155/2022/6534126, 2022, (1-15), Online publication date: 12-Mar-2022. Ding H, Chen W and Chen X (2022) Serum miR-96-5p is a novel and non-invasive marker of acute myocardial infarction associated with coronary artery disease, Bioengineered, 10.1080/21655979.2022.2031392, 13:2, (3930-3943), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2022. Kim J, Kim J, Lim J, Kim S, Kwon G and Koo S (2022) Evaluation of Copeptin for Diagnosing Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients with Chest pain and Mild Troponin I Elevation, Laboratory Medicine Online, 10.47429/lmo.2022.12.1.20, 12:1, (20-25), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2022. Kim S, Park J, Kwon J, Oh A, Gook J, Yang K, Choi J, Kim K, Sung J, Ahn J and Lee S (2021) The Charlson Comorbidity Index is associated with risk of 30-day mortality in patients with myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery, Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-021-98026-4, 11:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2021. Sinha R (2021) Wavelength modulation based surface plasmon resonance sensor for detection of cardiac marker proteins troponin I and troponin T, Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, 10.1016/j.sna.2021.113104, 332, (113104), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2021. Sun J, Qu Q, Lou Y, Hua Y, Sun G, Sun W and Kong X (2021) Cardiotoxicity in cancer immune-checkpoint therapy: Mechanisms, clinical evidence, and management strategies, International Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.09.041, 344, (170-178), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2021. Radha R and Al-Sayah M (2021) Development of Liposome-Based Immunoassay for the Detection of Cardiac Troponin I, Molecules, 10.3390/molecules26226988, 26:22, (6988) Kim S, Park J, Kim H, Yang K, Choi J, Kim K, Sung J, Ahn J and Lee S (2021) Intraoperative Hyperglycemia May Be Associated with an Increased Risk of Myocardial Injury after Non-Cardiac Surgery in Diabetic Patients, Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10.3390/jcm10225219, 10:22, (5219) Duque-Ossa L, García-Ferrera B and Reyes-Retana J (2021) Troponin I as a Biomarker for Early Detection of Acute Myocardial Infarction, Current Problems in Cardiology, 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2021.101067, (101067), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2021. Gholami M, O'Mullane A, Sonar P, Ayoko G and Izake E (2021) Antibody coated conductive polymer for the electrochemical immunosensing of Human Cardiac Troponin I in blood plasma, Analytica Chimica Acta, 10.1016/j.aca.2021.339082, 1185, (339082), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2021. Park J, Kwon J, Lee S, Lee J, Min J, Kim J, Oh A, Yang K, Choi J, Lee S, Kim K, Ahn J and Gwon H (2021) Prognosis of Myocardial Injury After Non-Cardiac Surgery in Adults Aged Younger Than 45 Years, Circulation Journal, 10.1253/circj.CJ-21-0106, 85:11, (2081-2088), Online publication date: 25-Oct-2021. Shin S, Park J, Lee S, Yang K and Park R (2021) Predictability of Mortality in Patients With Myocardial Injury After Noncardiac Surgery Based on Perioperative Factors via Machine Learning: Retrospective Study, JMIR Medical Informatics, 10.2196/32771, 9:10, (e32771) Surendran A, Atefi N, Zhang H, Aliani M and Ravandi A (2021) Defining Acute Coronary Syndrome through Metabolomics, Metabolites, 10.3390/metabo11100685, 11:10, (685) Sweeney D and Wiley B (2021) Integrated Multiorgan Bedside Ultrasound for the Diagnosis and Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock, Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 10.1055/s-0041-1733896, 42:05, (641-649), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2021. Kaier T, Alaour B and Marber M (2021) Cardiac troponin and defining myocardial infarction, Cardiovascular Research, 10.1093/cvr/cvaa331, 117:10, (2203-2215), Online publication date: 29-Aug-2021. Delombaerde D, Vervloet D, Franssen C, Croes L, Gremonprez F, Prenen H, Peeters M and Vulsteke C (2021) Clinical implications of isolated troponinemia following immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, ESMO Open, 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100216, 6:4, (100216), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2021. Guo W, Wang J, Guo W, Kang Q and Zhou F (2021) Interference-free photoelectrochemical immunoassays using carboxymethylated dextran-coated and gold-modified TiO2 nanotube arrays, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 10.1007/s00216-021-03442-0, 413:19, (4847-4854), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2021. GIAROLA J, SOUTO D and KUBOTA L (2021) Evaluation of PAMAM Dendrimers (G3, G4, and G5) in the Construction of a SPR-based Immunosensor for Cardiac Troponin T, Analytical Sciences, 10.2116/analsci.20P394, 37:7, (1007-1013), Online publication date: 10-Jul-2021. Hess N, Sultan I, Wang Y, Thoma F and Kilic A (2021) Preoperative troponin levels and outcomes of coronary surgery following myocardial infarction, Journal of Cardiac Surgery, 10.1111/jocs.15557, 36:7, (2429-2439), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2021. Rusling J and Forster R (2021) Biosensors Designed for Clinical Applications, Biomedicines, 10.3390/biomedicines9070702, 9:7, (702) Braukyliene R, Hedayat K, Zajanckauskiene L, Jurenas M, Unikas R, Aldujeli A, Petrokas O, Zabiela V, Steponaviciute R, Vitkauskiene A, Hedayat B, Simonyte S, Lesauskaite V, Lapraz J and Zaliaduonyte D (2021) Prognostic Value of Cortisol Index of Endobiogeny in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients, Medicina, 10.3390/medicina57060602, 57:6, (602) Kwon J, Park J, Lee S, Lee J, Min J, Kim J, Oh A, Seo W, Hyeon C, Yang K, Choi J, Lee S, Kim K, Ahn J and Gwon H (2021) Pre-operative anaemia and myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, European Journal of Anaesthesiology, 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001421, 38:6, (582-590), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2021. Taranova N, Slobodenuyk V, Zherdev A and Dzantiev B (2021) Network of gold conjugates for enhanced sensitive immunochromatographic assays of troponins, RSC Advances, 10.1039/D1RA02212A, 11:27, (16445-16452) Ran Y, Long J, Xu Z, Yin Y, Hu D, Long X, Zhang Y, Liang L, Liang H and Guan B (2021) Harmonic optical microfiber Bragg grating immunosensor for the accelerative test of cardiac biomarker (cTn-I), Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 10.1016/j.bios.2021.113081, 179, (113081), Online publication date: 1-May-2021. Leonardi A, Lo Faro M and Irrera A (2021) Biosensing platforms based on silicon nanostructures: A critical review, Analytica Chimica Acta, 10.1016/j.aca.2021.338393, 1160, (338393), Online publication date: 1-May-2021. Strong M, Richards J, Torres M, Beck C and La Belle J (2021) Faradaic electrochemical impedance spectroscopy for enhanced analyte detection in diagnostics, Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 10.1016/j.bios.2020.112949, 177, (112949), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2021. Oh A, Park J, Lee S, Kim J, Lee J, Min J, Kwon J, Hyeon C, Yang K, Choi J, Lee S and Gwon H (2021) Elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations may be associated with increased postdischarge mortality in patients with myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, European Journal of Anaesthesiology, 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001409, 38:1, (S33-S40), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2021. Mansuriya B and Altintas Z (2021) Enzyme-Free Electrochemical Nano-Immunosensor Based on Graphene Quantum Dots and Gold Nanoparticles for Cardiac Biomarker Determination, Nanomaterials, 10.3390/nano11030578, 11:3, (578) Park J, Kwon J, Lee S, Lee J, Min J, Kim J, Oh A, Seo W, Hyeon C, Yang K, Choi J, Lee S, Kim K, Ahn J, Gwon H and Wu W (2021) Intraoperative blood loss may be associated with myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery, PLOS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0241114, 16:2, (e0241114) Lippi G, Cervellin G and Sanchis-Gomar F (2019) Predicting mortality with cardiac troponins: recent insights from meta-analyses, Diagnosis, 10.1515/dx-2019-0061, 8:1, (37-49), Online publication date: 23-Feb-2021., Online publication date: 1-Feb-2021. Savonnet M, Rolland T, Cubizolles M, Roupioz Y and Buhot A (2021) Recent advances in cardiac biomarkers detection: From commercial devices to emerging technologies, Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, 10.1016/j.jpba.2020.113777, 194, (113777), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2021. Shan S, Lu S, Yang Y, Lin S, Carey P, Xian M, Ren F, Pearton S, Chang C, Lin J and Liao Y A Two-Electrode, Double-Pulsed Sensor Readout Circuit for Cardiac Troponin I Measurement, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems, 10.1109/TBCAS.2020.3029912, 14:6, (1362-1370) Lee S, Park J, Lee J, Min J, Hong K, Cho H, Carriere K and Ahn J (2020) Comparison of pre- and postoperative myocardial injuries on mortality after non-cardiac surgery: a retrospective analysis using an inverse probability weighting adjustment, Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-020-78023-9, 10:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020. Taasan S and Winchester D (2020) Overuse of Cardiac Troponin Among Hospitalized Patients: A Cohort Study of Biomarker "Superusers", Cardiology and Therapy, 10.1007/s40119-020-00193-4, 9:2, (549-552), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020. Rodriguez D, Jerjes-Sanchez C, Fonseca S, Garcia-Toto R, Martinez-Alvarado J, Panneflek J, Ortiz-Ledesma C and Nevarez F (2020) Thrombolysis in massive and submassive pulmonary embolism during pregnancy and the puerperium: a systematic review, Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, 10.1007/s11239-020-02122-7, 50:4, (929-941), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2020. Mangan B, McAlister R, Balko J, Johnson D, Moslehi J, Gibson A and Phillips E (2020) Evolving insights into the mechanisms of toxicity associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 10.1111/bcp.14433, 86:9, (1778-1789), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2020. Herrmann J (2020) Adverse cardiac effects of cancer therapies: cardiotoxicity and arrhythmia, Nature Reviews Cardiology, 10.1038/s41569-020-0348-1, 17:8, (474-502), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2020. Spallarossa P, Sarocchi M, Tini G, Arboscello E, Toma M, Ameri P and Porto I (2020) How to Monitor Cardiac Complications of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy, Frontiers in Pharmacology, 10.3389/fphar.2020.00972, 11 Schliemann C, Gerwing M, Heinzow H, Harrach S, Schwöppe C, Wildgruber M, Hansmeier A, Angenendt L, Berdel A, Stalmann U, Berning B, Kratz-Albers K, Middelberg-Bisping K, Wiebe S, Albring J, Wilms C, Hartmann W, Wardelmann E, Krähling T, Heindel W, Gerss J, Bormann E, Schmidt H, Lenz G, Kessler T, Mesters R and Berdel W (2020) First-In-Class CD13-Targeted Tissue Factor tTF-NGR in Patients with Recurrent or Refractory Malignant Tumors: Results of a Phase I Dose-Escalation Study, Cancers, 10.3390/cancers12061488, 12:6, (1488) Lee S, Kim J, Heo B, Kim Y, Ahn H, Yang M, Jang J and Ahn S (2020) Association between intraoperative hypotension and postoperative myocardial injury in patients with prior coronary stents undergoing high-risk surgery: a retrospective study, Journal of Anesthesia, 10.1007/s00540-020-02736-4, 34:2, (257-267), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2020. Weir R, Osmanska J, Docherty K and Petrie C (2019) Chest pain with less than 20% change in high sensitivity troponin T - a low risk cohort?, Acta Cardiologica, 10.1080/00015385.2018.1561598, 75:2, (149-155), Online publication dat
Referência(s)