Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
medicine
Detecting Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction in Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Trials
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, Volume 10, No. 7, Year 2017
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Objectives This study sought to investigate the differences in detecting (e.g., triggering) periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) among 3 current definitions. Background PMI is a frequent component of primary endpoints in coronary device trials. Identification of all potential suspected events is critical for accurate event ascertainment. Automatic triggers based on study databases prevent underreporting of events. Methods We generated automated algorithms to trigger PMI based on each definition and compared results using data from the RESOLUTE all comers trial. Results The operationalization of current PMI definitions was achieved by defining programmable algorithms used to interrogate the study database. From a total of 636 PMI triggers, we identified 234 for the World Health Organization extended definition, 382 for the Third Universal definition, and 216 for the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions definition. Differences among the biomarkers used, different cutoff values, and in the hierarchy among biomarkers within definitions, yielded a different number of triggers, and identified unique triggers for each definition. Only 38 triggers were consistently identified by all definitions. Availability of ECG data, eCRF data on clinical presentation, and the reporting of >2 post-procedural values of the same biomarker influenced considerably the number of PMI triggers identified. Conclusions PMI definitions are not interchangeable. The number of triggers identified and consequently the potential number of events varies significantly, highlighting the importance of rigorous methodology when PMI is a component of a powered endpoint. Emphasis on collection of biomarkers, ECG data, and clinical status at baseline may improve the correct identification of PMI triggers. © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation
Authors & Co-Authors
de Vries, Ton
Netherlands, Rotterdam
Cardialysis bv
Cavalcante, Rafael
Netherlands, Rotterdam
Erasmus Mc
Rademaker-Havinga, Tessa A.M.
Netherlands, Rotterdam
Cardialysis bv
Soliman, O. I.I.
Netherlands, Rotterdam
Cardialysis bv
Netherlands, Rotterdam
Erasmus Mc
Onuma, Yosinobu
Netherlands, Rotterdam
Cardialysis bv
Netherlands, Rotterdam
Erasmus Mc
Tijssen, Jan G.P.
Unknown Affiliation
Serruys, Patrick W.
United Kingdom, London
Imperial College London
Statistics
Citations: 7
Authors: 7
Affiliations: 4
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1016/j.jcin.2016.12.016
ISSN:
19368798
Research Areas
Noncommunicable Diseases
Study Design
Randomised Control Trial