A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the association of high sensitivity troponin levels with outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background High-sensitivity cardiac troponins (Hs-cTns) are reliable indicators of myocardial injury, but their relationship with cardiovascular outcomes remains less understood. This study explores the association between adverse cardiac events and Hs-cTnT levels exceeding 14 ng/L in patients with stable CAD.Methods Thirteen pertinent studies were identified using specific keywords from a pool of 208 articles retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, spanning 2013 to 2023. The primary outcomes included all-cause mortality (ACM), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death (CVD), rehospitalization due to decompensated heart failure (RDHF), need for revascularization, and stroke. Comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) was employed to analyze the data for odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics, and both qualitative assessment (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) and quantitative analysis (Egger’s and Beggs test, funnel plots) were conducted.Results The analysis included 29,115 participants (74.72% male) with a mean age of 68.34 years. It revealed a significantly elevated risk of ACM among stable CAD patients with Hs-cTnT levels >14 ng/L compared to those with levels <14 ng/L (11.2% vs. 3.3%; OR = 5.46; 95% CI = 1.53–19.54; p = 0.009). Similarly, higher risks were observed for MI (10.9% vs 3.6%; OR = 3.12; 95% CI = 0.98–9.95, p = 0.053), CVD (8.1% vs. 2.1%; OR = 3.37; 95% CI = 1.74–6.50; p < 0.0001), and RDHF (6.62% vs. 0.92%; OR = 9.46; 95% CI = 4.65–19.24; p < 0.0001). Notably, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) exhibited a stronger association with Hs-cTnT levels (18.2% vs 7.81%; OR = 1.89; 95% CI = 0.80–4.43; I2 = 97%; p = 0.14) compared to Hs-cTnI levels (20.1% vs 21.1%; OR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.03–1.64; I2 <0.0001%; p = 0.03).Conclusion Elevated levels of Hs-cTnT (>14 ng/L) are significantly associated with increased risks of RDHF and ACM in patients with stable CAD. Further large-scale prospective studies are warranted to refine risk assessment strategies and mitigate cardiovascular mortality in this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".