Standard Diagnostic Pathway Research Articles

15 Elevated troponins and normal coronary angiogram

Introduction Elevated Cardiac enzymes are associated with high morbidity and mortality. A significant subset of patients referred to the cardiac service has raised troponin levels and normal coronary angiography. This subset is distinctive from patients with type 2 myocardial infarction (MI). It includes patients with no active medical conditions who present with clinical and electrocardiographic features similar to that of acute coronary syndrome. In this report we describe a cohort of patients, in whom the diagnosis of type 1 myocardial infarction was very likely, but subsequently had normal angiogram. Purpose of study The aim of the study is to identify a diagnostic approach for patients who display features of MI with no evidence of obstructive coronary artery pathology. Methods The study included all patients with suspected with MI (STEMI or NSTEMI) with raised troponin, abnormal ECG and normal coronary angiography who attended the PCI centre at the University Hospital Limerick between September 2015 to January 2016. All patients received the standard diagnostic pathway of acute coronary syndrome. Data collected included baseline characteristics, ECG on presentation, laboratory profile, Grace score, cardiac imaging results, recurrence of symptoms and hospital readmission over 3–6 months period. All patients included in this study had normal coronary angiogram. Result A total of 26 patients included in this study, 13 (50%) patients were men and the mean age was 51 years old. 6.7 (26.9%) patients presented as STEMI while 19 (73.0%) patients had ST segment depression on presenting ECG. Mean troponin level on admission was 285.9 ng/dl with mean Grace score of 100.04. 69% of the patients had normal EF on Echocardiogram and 11 (42%) patients had cardiac MRI (CMR) and one patient under went optical coherence tomography (OCT) during coronary angiography. Confirmed diagnosis post-appropriate investigations included acute myocarditis (34.6%), acute myocardial ischemia on CMR (15.3%), Takotsubo syndrome (7.6%), pulmonary embolus (3.8%), Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (11.5%) and severe aortic stenosis (3.8%). 4 (15.3%) patients had recurrent hospital admission with similar presentation while 84% had experienced no further symptoms or hospital admission. Conclusion Establishing a definitive diagnosis in patients with raised troponin and normal coronary angiogram is challenging, but using imaging modalities such as CMR and OCT provides a valuable insight to guide diagnosis and management. Acute myocarditis is the most common cause of raised troponin and normal angiogram in this cohort.

Implantable loop recorder versus conventional diagnostic workup for unexplained recurrent syncope.

The most recent syncope guideline recommends that implantable loop recorders (ILRs) are implanted in the early phase of evaluation of people with recurrent syncope of uncertain origin in the absence of high-risk criteria, and in high-risk patients after a negative evaluation. Observational and case-control studies have shown that loop recorders lead to earlier diagnosis and reduce the rate of unexplained syncopes, justifying their use in clinical practice. However, only randomised clinical trials with an emphasis on a primary outcome of specific ILR-guided diagnosis and therapy, rather than simply electrocardiogram (ECG) diagnosis, might change clinical practice. To assess the incidence of mortality, quality of life, adverse events and costs of ILRs versus conventional diagnostic workup in people with unexplained syncope. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2015), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal in April 2015. No language restriction was applied. We included all randomised controlled trials of adult participants (i.e. ≥ 18 years old) with a diagnosis of unexplained syncope comparing ILR with standard diagnostic workup. Two independent review authors screened titles and abstracts of all potential studies we identified as a result of the literature search, extracted study characteristics and outcome data from included studies and assessed risk of bias for each study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We contacted authors of trials for missing data. We analysed dichotomous data (all-cause mortality and aetiologic diagnosis) as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the Chi(2) test to assess statistical heterogeneity (with P < 0.1) and the I² statistic to measure heterogeneity among the trials. We created a 'Summary of findings' table using the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness and publication bias) to assess the quality of a body of evidence as it relates to the studies which contribute data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes. We included four trials involving a total of 579 participants. With the limitation that only two studies reported data on mortality and none of them had considered death as a primary endpoint, the meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference in the risk of long-term mortality between participants who received ILR and those who were managed conventionally at follow-up (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.30; participants = 255; studies = 2; very low quality evidence) with no evidence of heterogeneity. No data on short term mortality were available. Two studies reported data on adverse events after ILR implant. Due to the lack of data on adverse events in one of the studies' arms, a formal meta-analysis was not performed for this outcome.Data from two trials seemed to show no difference in quality of life, although this finding was not supported by a formal analysis due to the differences in both the scores used and the way the data were reported. Data from two studies seemed to show a trend towards a reduction in syncope relapses after diagnosis in participants implanted with ILR. Cost analyses from two studies showed higher overall mean costs in the ILR group, if the costs incurred by the ILR implant were counted. The mean cost per diagnosis and the mean cost per arrhythmic diagnosis were lower for participants randomised to ILR implant.Participants who underwent ILR implantation experienced higher rates of diagnosis (RR (in favour of ILR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.68; participants = 579; studies = 4; moderate quality evidence), as compared to participants in the standard assessment group, with no evidence of heterogeneity. Our systematic review shows that there is no evidence that an ILR-based diagnostic strategy reduces long-term mortality as compared to a standard diagnostic assessment (very low quality evidence). No data were available for short-term all-cause mortality. Moderate quality evidence shows that an ILR-based diagnostic strategy increases the rate of aetiologic diagnosis as compared to a standard diagnostic pathway. No conclusive data were available on the other end-points analysed.Further trials evaluating the effect of ILRs in the diagnostic strategy of people with recurrent unexplained syncope are warranted. Future research should focus on the assessment of the ability of ILRs to change clinically relevant outcomes, such as quality of life, syncope relapse and costs.