Suspected acute coronary syndrome is the commonest reason for emergency admission to hospital and is a large burden on health-care resources. Strategies to identify low-risk patients suitable for immediate discharge would have major benefits. We did a prospective cohort study of 6304 consecutively enrolled patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome presenting to four secondary and tertiary care hospitals in Scotland. We measured plasma troponin concentrations at presentation using a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I assay. In derivation and validation cohorts, we evaluated the negative predictive value of a range of troponin concentrations for the primary outcome of index myocardial infarction, or subsequent myocardial infarction or cardiac death at 30 days. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01852123). 782 (16%) of 4870 patients in the derivation cohort had index myocardial infarction, with a further 32 (1%) re-presenting with myocardial infarction and 75 (2%) cardiac deaths at 30 days. In patients without myocardial infarction at presentation, troponin concentrations were less than 5 ng/L in 2311 (61%) of 3799 patients, with a negative predictive value of 99·6% (95% CI 99·3-99·8) for the primary outcome. The negative predictive value was consistent across groups stratified by age, sex, risk factors, and previous cardiovascular disease. In two independent validation cohorts, troponin concentrations were less than 5 ng/L in 594 (56%) of 1061 patients, with an overall negative predictive value of 99·4% (98·8-99·9). At 1 year, these patients had a lower risk of myocardial infarction and cardiac death than did those with a troponin concentration of 5 ng/L or more (0·6% vs 3·3%; adjusted hazard ratio 0·41, 95% CI 0·21-0·80; p<0·0001). Low plasma troponin concentrations identify two-thirds of patients at very low risk of cardiac events who could be discharged from hospital. Implementation of this approach could substantially reduce hospital admissions and have major benefits for both patients and health-care providers. British Heart Foundation and Chief Scientist Office (Scotland).

Aims: To describe the cardiac abnormalities in patients with COVID-19 and identify the characteristics of patients who would benefit most from echocardiography. Methods and results: In a prospective international survey, we captured echocardiography findings in patients with presumed or confirmed COVID-19 between 3 and 20 April 2020. Patient characteristics, indications, findings, and impact of echocardiography on management were recorded. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of echocardiographic abnormalities. A total of 1216 patients [62 (52–71) years, 70% male] from 69 countries across six continents were included. Overall, 667 (55%) patients had an abnormal echocardiogram. Left and right ventricular abnormalities were reported in 479 (39%) and 397 (33%) patients, respectively, with evidence of new myocardial infarction in 36 (3%), myocarditis in 35 (3%), and takotsubo cardiomyopathy in 19 (2%). Severe cardiac disease (severe ventricular dysfunction or tamponade) was observed in 182 (15%) patients. In those without pre-existing cardiac disease (n = 901), the echocardiogram was abnormal in 46%, and 13% had severe disease. Independent predictors of left and right ventricular abnormalities were distinct, including elevated natriuretic peptides [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.75–5.05) and cardiac troponin (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.13–2.53) for the former, and severity of COVID-19 symptoms (OR 3.19, 95% CI 1.73–6.10) for the latter. Echocardiography changed management in 33% of patients. Conclusion: In this global survey, cardiac abnormalities were observed in half of all COVID-19 patients undergoing echocardiography. Abnormalities were often unheralded or severe, and imaging changed management in one-third of patients.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays permit use of lower thresholds for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction, but whether this improves clinical outcomes is unknown. We aimed to determine whether the introduction of a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) assay with a sex-specific 99th centile diagnostic threshold would reduce subsequent myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. In this stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial across ten secondary or tertiary care hospitals in Scotland, we evaluated the implementation of an hs-cTnI assay in consecutive patients who had been admitted to the hospitals' emergency departments with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they presented with suspected acute coronary syndrome and had paired cardiac troponin measurements from the standard care and trial assays. During a validation phase of 6-12 months, results from the hs-cTnI assay were concealed from the attending clinician, and a contemporary cardiac troponin I (cTnI) assay was used to guide care. Hospitals were randomly allocated to early (n=5 hospitals) or late (n=5 hospitals) implementation, in which the high-sensitivity assay and sex-specific 99th centile diagnostic threshold was introduced immediately after the 6-month validation phase or was deferred for a further 6 months. Patients reclassified by the high-sensitivity assay were defined as those with an increased hs-cTnI concentration in whom cTnI concentrations were below the diagnostic threshold on the contemporary assay. The primary outcome was subsequent myocardial infarction or death from cardiovascular causes at 1 year after initial presentation. Outcomes were compared in patients reclassified by the high-sensitivity assay before and after its implementation by use of an adjusted generalised linear mixed model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01852123. Between June 10, 2013, and March 3, 2016, we enrolled 48 282 consecutive patients (61 [SD 17] years, 47% women) of whom 10 360 (21%) patients had cTnI concentrations greater than those of the 99th centile of the normal range of values, who were identified by the contemporary assay or the high-sensitivity assay. The high-sensitivity assay reclassified 1771 (17%) of 10 360 patients with myocardial injury or infarction who were not identified by the contemporary assay. In those reclassified, subsequent myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death within 1 year occurred in 105 (15%) of 720 patients in the validation phase and 131 (12%) of 1051 patients in the implementation phase (adjusted odds ratio for implementation vs validation phase 1·10, 95% CI 0·75 to 1·61; p=0·620). Use of a high-sensitivity assay prompted reclassification of 1771 (17%) of 10 360 patients with myocardial injury or infarction, but was not associated with a lower subsequent incidence of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death at 1 year. Our findings question whether the diagnostic threshold for myocardial infarction should be based on the 99th centile derived from a normal reference population. The British Heart Foundation.

Although coronary thrombus overlying a disrupted atherosclerotic plaque has long been considered the hallmark and the primary therapeutic target for acute myocardial infarction (MI), multiple other mechanisms are now known to cause or contribute to MI. It is further recognized that an MI is just one of many types of acute myocardial injury. The Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction provides a taxonomy for acute myocardial injury, including 5 subtypes of MI and nonischemic myocardial injury. The diagnosis of MI is reserved for patients with myocardial ischemia as the cause of myocardial injury, whether attributable to acute atherothrombosis (type 1 MI) or supply/demand mismatch without acute atherothrombosis (type 2 MI). Myocardial injury in the absence of ischemia is categorized as acute or chronic nonischemic myocardial injury. However, optimal evaluation and treatment strategies for these etiologically distinct diagnoses have yet to be defined. Herein, we review the epidemiology, risk factor associations, and diagnostic tools that may assist in differentiating between nonischemic myocardial injury, type 1 MI, and type 2 MI. We identify limitations, review new research, and propose a framework for the diagnostic and therapeutic approach for patients who have suspected MI or other causes of myocardial injury.

Data regarding high-sensitivity troponin concentrations in patients presenting to the emergency department with symptoms suggestive of myocardial infarction may be useful in determining the probability of myocardial infarction and subsequent 30-day outcomes.

Background—Type 2 myocardial infarction and myocardial injury are common in clinical practice, but long-term consequences are uncertain. We aimed to define long-term outcomes and explore risk stratification in patients with type 2 myocardial infarction and myocardial injury. Methods—We identified consecutive patients (n=2,122) with elevated cardiac troponin I concentrations (≥0.05 μg/L) at a tertiary cardiac center. All diagnoses were adjudicated as per the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. The primary outcome was all-cause death. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; non-fatal myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death) and non-cardiovascular death. To explore competing risks, cause-specific hazard ratios were obtained using Cox regression models. Results—The adjudicated index diagnosis was type 1 or type 2 myocardial infarction or myocardial injury in 1,171 (55.2%), 429 (20.2%) and 522 (24.6%) patients, respectively. At five years, all-cause death rates were higher in those with type 2 myocardial infarction (62.5%) or myocardial injury (72.4%) compared with type 1 myocardial infarction (36.7%). The majority of excess deaths in those with type 2 myocardial infarction or myocardial injury were due to non-cardiovascular causes (HR 2.32, 95%CI 1.92-2.81, versus type 1 myocardial infarction). Despite this, the observed crude MACE rates were similar between groups (30.6% versus 32.6%), with differences apparent after adjustment for co-variates (HR 0.82, 95%CI 0.69-0.96). Coronary heart disease was an independent predictor of MACE in those with type 2 myocardial infarction or myocardial injury (HR 1.71, 95%CI 1.31-2.24). Conclusions—Despite an excess in non-cardiovascular death, patients with type 2 myocardial infarction or myocardial injury have a similar crude rate of major adverse cardiovascular events to those with type 1 myocardial infarction. Identifying underlying coronary heart disease in this vulnerable population may help target therapies that could modify future risk.