Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly using more sensitive cardiac troponin assays

Reiter, Miriam, Twerenbold, Raphael, Reichlin, Tobias, Haaf, Philip, Peter, Frederico, Meissner, Julia, Hochholzer, Willibald, Stelzig, Claudia, Freese, Michael, Heinisch, Corinna, Breidthardt, Tobias, Freidank, Heike, Winkler, Katrin, Campodarve, Isabel, Gea, Joaquim, Mueller, Christian·2011·European Heart Journal

Abstract

AIMS: To examine the diagnostic accuracy of sensitive cardiac troponin (cTn) assays in elderly patients, since elevated levels with sensitive cTn assays were reported in 20% of elderly patients without acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: In this multi-centre study, we included 1098 consecutive patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of AMI, 406 (37%) were >70 years old. Measurement of three investigational sensitive cTn assays [Roche high-sensitive cTnT (hs-cTnT), Siemens cTnI-Ultra, and Abbott-Architect cTnI) and the standard assay (Roche cTnT) was performed in a blinded fashion. The final diagnosis was adjudicated by two independent cardiologists. Acute myocardial infarction was the adjudicated final diagnosis in 24% of elderly patients. Among elderly patients without AMI, baseline cTn levels were elevated above the 99th percentile in 51% with Roche hs-cTnT, in 17% with Siemens TnI-Ultra, and 13% with Abbott-Architect cTnI. The diagnostic accuracy as quantified by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was significantly greater for the sensitive cTn assays compared with the standard assay (AUC for Roche hs-cTnT, 0.94; Siemens cTnI-Ultra, 0.95; and Abbott-Architect cTnI, 0.95 vs. AUC for the standard assay, 0.90; P < 0.05 for comparisons). The best cut-offs for the sensitive cTn-assays determined by the ROC-curve in elderly patients differed clearly from those in younger patients. Furthermore, the prognostic value regarding 90-day mortality varied among the sensitive cTn assays. CONCLUSION: Sensitive cTn assays have high diagnostic accuracy also in the elderly. Mild elevations are common in elderly non-AMI patients, therefore the optimal cut-off levels are substantially higher in elderly as compared with younger patients. Furthermore, sensitive cTn assays yielded different prognostic value.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr033

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Reiter, M., Twerenbold, R., Reichlin, T., Haaf, P., Peter, F., Meissner, J., Hochholzer, W., Stelzig, C., Freese, M., Heinisch, C., Breidthardt, T., Freidank, H., Winkler, K., Campodarve, I., Gea, J., & Mueller, C.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2011-02-28
Volume
32
Issue
11
Pages
1379-1389
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2101955369
Cited by
287
References
2
FWCI
23.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly using more sensitive cardiac troponin assays. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehr033
The paper
Reiter, M., Twerenbold, R., Reichlin, T., Haaf, P., Peter, F., Meissner, J., Hochholzer, W., Stelzig, C., Freese, M., Heinisch, C., Breidthardt, T., Freidank, H., Winkler, K., Campodarve, I., Gea, J., & Mueller, C. (2011). Early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly using more sensitive cardiac troponin assays. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehr033

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.