Diagnostic accuracy of baseline troponin and troponin change for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction complicated with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI) in the presence of heart failure (HF) presents a clinical problem. While diagnostic algorithms using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin have been established for suspected MI, their accuracy in patients with HF remains uncertain. This study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of high-sensitivity troponin I (TnI) levels in identifying acute MI among patients with HF, focusing on baseline, absolute and relative TnI changes. METHODS: Data from 562 individuals admitted to the emergency department with suspected MI were retrospectively analysed. Two-point TnI and baseline brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) test results were available. HF status was determined based on clinical, laboratory and instrumental criteria. RESULTS: Among the 562 patients, 299 (53.2%) were confirmed having MI. Baseline TnI demonstrated predictive capability for MI in the overall population (area under the curve (AUC) 0.63), while TnI relative change exhibited superior performance (AUC 0.83). Baseline TnI accuracy varied significantly by group, notably decreasing in the third group (severe HF) (AUC 0.54) compared with the first and second groups (AUC 0.67 and AUC 0.71, respectively). TnI relative change demonstrated consistent accuracy across all groups, with AUCs of 0.79, 0.79 and 0.89 for the first, second and third groups, respectively, even after adjustment for age, sex and glomerular filtration rate. DISCUSSION: Troponin relative change is a reliable predictor of MI, even in patients with acute HF. Baseline TnI accuracy is influenced by HF severity. It is essential to consider HF status and BNP levels when employing high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing to rule out suspected MIs.

Effectiveness of patients' involvement in a medical and nursing pain education programme: a protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial including qualitative data.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is a multidimensional experience that varies among individuals and has a significant impact on their health. A biopsychosocial approach is recommended for effective pain management; however, health professionals' education is weak on this issue. Patient involvement is a promising didactic methodology in developing a more holistic perspective, however there is a lack of reliable evidence on this topic. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effectiveness of patient involvement in pain education in undergraduate medicine and nursing students. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An open-label randomised controlled trial including qualitative data will be conducted. After an introductory lesson, each student will be randomly assigned to the intervention group, which includes an educational session conducted by a patient-partner along with an educator, or to the control group in which the session is exclusively conducted by an educator. Both sessions will be carried out according to the Case-Based Learning approach. Primary outcomes will be students' knowledge, attitudes, opinions and beliefs about pain management, whereas the secondary outcome will be students' satisfaction. The Pain Knowledge and Attitudes (PAK) and Chronic Pain Myth Scale (CPMS) will be administered preintervention and postintervention to measure primary outcomes. Students' satisfaction will be measured by a questionnaire at the end of the session. Two focus groups will be conducted to evaluate non-quantifiable aspects of learning. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol of this study was approved by the independent Area Vasta Emilia Nord ethics committee.Adherence to The Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice will ensure that the rights, safety and well-being of the participants in the study are safeguarded, as well as data reliability. The results will be disseminated through scientific publications and used to improve the educational offer. A version of the anonymised data set will be released for public access. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial was not registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as the interventions being compared only concern educational programmes and the outcomes considered do not refer to any clinical dimension.