Speciality Medical Dialogues
    • facebook
    • twitter
    Login Register
    • facebook
    • twitter
    Login Register
    • Medical Dialogues
    • Education Dialogues
    • Business Dialogues
    • Medical Jobs
    • Medical Matrimony
    • MD Brand Connect
    Speciality Medical Dialogues
    • Editorial
    • News
        • Anesthesiology
        • Cancer
        • Cardiac Sciences
        • Critical Care
        • Dentistry
        • Dermatology
        • Diabetes and Endo
        • Diagnostics
        • ENT
        • Featured Research
        • Gastroenterology
        • Geriatrics
        • Medicine
        • Nephrology
        • Neurosciences
        • Nursing
        • Obs and Gynae
        • Ophthalmology
        • Orthopaedics
        • Paediatrics
        • Parmedics
        • Pharmacy
        • Psychiatry
        • Pulmonology
        • Radiology
        • Surgery
        • Urology
    • Practice Guidelines
        • Anesthesiology Guidelines
        • Cancer Guidelines
        • Cardiac Sciences Guidelines
        • Critical Care Guidelines
        • Dentistry Guidelines
        • Dermatology Guidelines
        • Diabetes and Endo Guidelines
        • Diagnostics Guidelines
        • ENT Guidelines
        • Featured Practice Guidelines
        • Gastroenterology Guidelines
        • Geriatrics Guidelines
        • Medicine Guidelines
        • Nephrology Guidelines
        • Neurosciences Guidelines
        • Obs and Gynae Guidelines
        • Ophthalmology Guidelines
        • Orthopaedics Guidelines
        • Paediatrics Guidelines
        • Psychiatry Guidelines
        • Pulmonology Guidelines
        • Radiology Guidelines
        • Surgery Guidelines
        • Urology Guidelines
    LoginRegister
    Speciality Medical Dialogues
    LoginRegister
    • Home
    • Editorial
    • News
      • Anesthesiology
      • Cancer
      • Cardiac Sciences
      • Critical Care
      • Dentistry
      • Dermatology
      • Diabetes and Endo
      • Diagnostics
      • ENT
      • Featured Research
      • Gastroenterology
      • Geriatrics
      • Medicine
      • Nephrology
      • Neurosciences
      • Nursing
      • Obs and Gynae
      • Ophthalmology
      • Orthopaedics
      • Paediatrics
      • Parmedics
      • Pharmacy
      • Psychiatry
      • Pulmonology
      • Radiology
      • Surgery
      • Urology
    • Practice Guidelines
      • Anesthesiology Guidelines
      • Cancer Guidelines
      • Cardiac Sciences Guidelines
      • Critical Care Guidelines
      • Dentistry Guidelines
      • Dermatology Guidelines
      • Diabetes and Endo Guidelines
      • Diagnostics Guidelines
      • ENT Guidelines
      • Featured Practice Guidelines
      • Gastroenterology Guidelines
      • Geriatrics Guidelines
      • Medicine Guidelines
      • Nephrology Guidelines
      • Neurosciences Guidelines
      • Obs and Gynae Guidelines
      • Ophthalmology Guidelines
      • Orthopaedics Guidelines
      • Paediatrics Guidelines
      • Psychiatry Guidelines
      • Pulmonology Guidelines
      • Radiology Guidelines
      • Surgery Guidelines
      • Urology Guidelines
    • Home
    • News
    • Cardiac Sciences
    • Tropinin Blood test...

    Tropinin Blood test for heart attack diagnosis flawed, finds BMJ Study

    Written by Hina Zahid Published On 2019-03-13T20:20:12+05:30  |  Updated On 13 March 2019 8:20 PM IST
    Tropinin Blood test for heart attack diagnosis flawed, finds BMJ Study

    The researchers, led by cardiologist Professor Nick Curzen, say these results highlight the need for medical staff to interpret troponin levels carefully in order to avoid misdiagnosis of a heart attack and inappropriate treatment.


    New Delhi: Providing contradictory results to the norm, a recent study in the British Medical Journal has pointed out that Troponin, one of the most relied on blood tests for diagnosing a heart attack, may not be that reliable.


    Use of this blood test for diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) in patients admitted to the hospital can be misleading, researchers warn in a study published in the journal The BMJ.


    One in 20, of 20,000 consecutive patients undergoing blood tests at University Hospital Southampton, had levels of troponin (a protein released into the bloodstream during a heart attack) higher than the recommended levels. But in most of these patients were being seen for other conditions and so there were no clinical signs or symptoms of a heart attack.


    Troponin levels also differed according to several factors such as age, sex and whether inpatient or outpatient.


    The researchers, led by cardiologist Professor Nick Curzen, say these results highlight the need for medical staff to interpret troponin levels carefully in order to avoid misdiagnosis of a heart attack and inappropriate treatment.


    Current guidelines recommend troponin tests to help exclude or diagnose a heart attack. Manufacturers of troponin tests provide a recommended level (known as the 99th centile) based on values from a few hundred healthy individuals.


    This recommended level is used as the upper limit of normal (ULN). In other words, if the value of troponin is above the 99th percentile, that is considered to be abnormal and would indicate a heart attack in appropriate clinical circumstances.


    But little is known about the true distribution of the troponin level across a whole hospital population that includes inpatients, outpatients, patients undergoing surgery, in intensive care etc.


    So researchers measured levels of high sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) in 20,000 inpatients and outpatients undergoing blood tests for any reason at University Hospital Southampton between 29 June and 24 August 2017.


    The average age of participants was 61 and 53% (10,580) were women.


    Key Findings:

    • 99th centile of troponin for the whole study population was 296 ng/L compared with the manufacturer’s recommended level of 40 ng/L.

    • One in 20 of all 20,000 patients had a troponin level greater than 40 ng/L, but in most of these patients, there was no clinical suspicion of a heart attack.

    • Overall, 39% of all patients from the critical care units, 14% of all medical inpatients, and 6% of all patients from the emergency department had a troponin concentration greater than the recommended ULN.


    This is an observational study, and as such, can’t establish cause, and the researchers point to some limitations, such as relying on patient records for details about management and diagnoses and being unable to examine clinical outcomes.


    Nevertheless, they say this study shows that “the 99th centile of high sensitivity troponin I concentration of the population in our hospital was substantially higher than the manufacturer’s recommended ULN used in clinical practice based on the 99th centile for a healthy population.”


    These data “highlight the need for clinical staff to interpret hs-cTnI concentrations carefully, particularly when applying the recommended ULN to diagnose acute myocardial infarction, in order to avoid misdiagnosis in the absence of an appropriate clinical presentation,” they conclude.

    Blood testbloodstreamclinical circumstancescritical care unitsheart attack diagnosisheart attacksheart-attackinterpret troponin levelsMIMisdiagnosismyocardial infarctionProfessor Nick CurzenThe BMJtroponinULNUniversity Hospital Southampton
    Source : With inputs from BMJ

    Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2020 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

    Hina Zahid
    Hina Zahid
      Show Full Article
      Next Story
      Similar Posts
      NO DATA FOUND

      • Email: info@medicaldialogues.in
      • Phone: 011 - 4372 0751

      Website Last Updated On : 12 Oct 2022 7:06 AM GMT
      Company
      • About Us
      • Contact Us
      • Our Team
      • Reach our Editor
      • Feedback
      • Submit Article
      Ads & Legal
      • Advertise
      • Advertise Policy
      • Terms and Conditions
      • Privacy Policy
      • Editorial Policy
      • Comments Policy
      • Disclamier
      Medical Dialogues is health news portal designed to update medical and healthcare professionals but does not limit/block other interested parties from accessing our general health content. The health content on Medical Dialogues and its subdomains is created and/or edited by our expert team, that includes doctors, healthcare researchers and scientific writers, who review all medical information to keep them in line with the latest evidence-based medical information and accepted health guidelines by established medical organisations of the world.

      Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription.Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. You can check out disclaimers here. © 2025 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

      © 2025 - Medical Dialogues. All Rights Reserved.
      Powered By: Hocalwire
      X
      We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by continuing to use our site. To know more, see our Cookie Policy and Cookie Settings.Ok