MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2759758030 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000002424

Prognostic Significance of Post-CABG Enzyme Elevations

2017· letter· en· W2759758030 sur OpenAlexaff
Michaël Domanski, Michael E. Farkouh

Notice bibliographique

RevueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2017
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Établissements canadiensHeart and Stroke Foundation
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyCreatine kinaseClinical significanceTroponin TTroponinBypass graftingMeta-analysisArteryMyocardial infarction

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In this issue, Mauermann et al1 examine the prognostic value of high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) elevation after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). To put this article into the proper perspective, a review of what we know about post-CABG enzyme elevations is useful. Enzyme elevations after CABG are common and were, at one time, believed to be a benign concomitant of the surgery. A number of smaller studies,2–5 and then a large meta-analysis,6 examined the prognostic significance of these postoperative enzyme elevations. The meta-analysis examined 18,908 patients, by far the largest study of this subject, and showed a strong, graded, independent association of creatine kinase-MB and troponin with mortality for all ratios of postprocedure enzyme level to the upper limit of normal greater than 1.0. Interestingly, in this study, enzyme elevations in the first 24 hours after surgery continued to be significant indicators of late prognosis for those surviving 30 days and also for those surviving for 1 year. These data made clear that even small enzyme elevations after CABG have prognostic importance. Other smaller studies, not included in this meta-analysis, lead to qualitatively similar conclusions, and quantitative differences likely represent differences in study design, study populations, and study size.7 That even modest enzyme elevations post-CABG are predictive of long-term prognosis and the graded association of worsening prognosis with the degree of enzyme elevation has relevance for a number of reasons, including the potential to use enzyme elevation determinations as surrogate end points in clinical trials and perhaps even as a metric of surgical quality. An improved understanding of the clinical relevance of elevated enzymes post-CABG requires a more complete understanding of the reasons for both the long-term prognostic significance of small enzyme elevations and the basis for the graded association of elevation with outcome. Are postoperative elevations simply markers of more aggressive disease or is the necrosis that results in enzyme elevation in the pathophysiologic train of events leading to death? If enzyme elevations are just markers of disease independent of the consequences of physiologic damage due to necrosis, then some mechanism would be needed that quantitatively links enzyme elevation after CABG to long-term prognosis independent of severity of physiologic damage due to necrosis. From first principles, this seems unlikely. Additionally, a graded relationship of enzyme elevation to prognosis also exists for percutaneous intervention.8 In the absence of sudden occlusion of a vessel, the mechanism of necrosis is different in these 2 procedures and yet the graded prognostic significance of enzyme elevations is qualitatively similar. The conclusion most likely to be correct is that the necrosis produced by these procedures is causally related to prognosis and not just a marker of aggressive disease. The observed relationship of post-CABG enzyme elevation to long-term prognosis offers the possibility of using the occurrence and severity of enzyme elevation as a surrogate end point in clinical trials or as a metric of CABG quality. However, use as a quality metric will require clarity regarding the mechanism by which even a small enzyme rise detriments prognosis to assure that the increased mortality is primarily related to the surgery and not to patient characteristics that would have resulted in a rise regardless of the quality of the operation. The next fundamental question is not whether post-CABG enzyme elevations have prognostic significance, this is now established, but rather why do even small amounts of necrosis predict late prognosis? This is the context surrounding the article by Mauermann et al.1 They included a total of 1155 patients who underwent on-pump CABG, valve surgery, or combined valve and coronary surgery. The study used an hsTnT assay and found, as expected, that enzyme elevations independently predict 30-day and 1-year prognosis. Although anticipated based on prior work, the article confirms that when newer assays of troponin are used, enzyme elevations continue to have prognostic significance. In this article, a number of the patients who had only valvular disease were included. An analysis of this subgroup might have provided an indication of whether troponin elevation is just a marker of aggressive coronary disease or, instead, directly in the pathophysiologic pathway. The authors also make the point that hsTnT determinations add to the prognostic significance of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation Score (EuroSCORE). In this context, it is to be noted that, while the EuroSCORE predicts outcome using a series of variables, correcting for EuroSCORE is not necessarily the same as correcting individually for the variables that compose the score. Such an approach would have resulted in a more compelling analysis. The article leaves to the future any attempt to define the mechanism by which enzyme elevation, particularly modest elevations, contribute to mortality. One approach would be a larger but similar cohort of valvular heart disease patients in whom the prognostic significance of modest troponin elevations could be compared to the prognosis in patients with valvular heart disease and no postoperative enzyme elevation. DISCLOSURES Name: Michael J. Domanski, MD. Contribution: This author helped analyze the evidence and write the manuscript. Name: Michael E. Farkouh, MD, MSc. Contribution: This author helped analyze the evidence and write the manuscript. This manuscript was handled by: W. Scott Beattie, PhD, MD, FRCPC.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,006
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,030

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,027
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,031
Tête enseignante GPT0,306
Écart entre enseignants0,274 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaMême sujetAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchTravaux en français237 207