Comparison of troponin and natriuretic peptides in Takotsubo syndrome and acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Takotsubo syndrome (TTS) is an acute heart failure syndrome which resembles acute coronary syndrome (ACS) at presentation. Differentiation requires coronary angiography, but where this does not occur immediately, cardiac biomarkers may provide additional utility. We performed a meta-analysis to compare troponin and natriuretic peptides (NPs) in TTS and ACS to determine if differences in biomarker profile can aid diagnosis. METHODS: We searched five literature databases for studies reporting NPs (Brain NP (BNP)/NT-pro-BNP) or troponin I/T in TTS and ACS, identifying 28 studies for troponin/NPs (5618 and 1145 patients, respectively). RESULTS: Troponin was significantly lower in TTS than ACS (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.86; 95% CI, -1.08 to -0.64; p<0.00001), with an absolute difference of 75 times the upper limit of normal (×ULN) higher in ACS than TTS. Conversely, NPs were significantly higher in TTS (SMD 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.80; p<0.00001) and 5.8×ULN greater absolutely. Area under the curve (AUC) for troponin in ACS versus TTS was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.93), and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.00) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction versus TTS. For NPs, AUC was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89). Combination of troponin and NPs with logistic regression did not improve AUC. Recursive Partitioning and Regression Tree analysis calculated a troponin threshold ≥26×ULN that identified 95% cases as ACS where and specificity for ACS were 85.71% and 53.57%, respectively, with 94.32% positive predictive value and 29.40% negative predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Troponin is lower and NPs higher in TTS versus ACS. Troponin had greater power than NPs at discriminating TTS and ACS, and with troponin ≥26×ULN patients are far more likely to have ACS.

Endocrine therapy use and cardiovascular risk in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: Examine the effect of tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors (AIs) on the risk of 12 clinically relevant cardiovascular outcomes in postmenopausal female breast cancer survivors. METHODS: We carried out two prospective cohort studies among postmenopausal women with breast cancer in UK primary care and hospital data (2002-2016) and US Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data (2008-2013). Using Cox adjusted proportional hazards models, we compared cardiovascular risks between AI and tamoxifen users; and in the USA, between users of both drug classes and women receiving no endocrine therapy. RESULTS: 10 005 (UK) and 22 027 (USA) women with postmenopausal breast cancer were included. In both countries, there were higher coronary artery disease risks in AI compared with tamoxifen users (UK age-standardised incidence rate: 10.17 vs 7.51 per 1000 person-years, HR: 1.29, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.76; US age-standardised incidence rate: 36.82 vs 26.02 per 1000 person-years, HR: 1.29, 95% C I1.06 to 1.55). However, comparisons with those receiving no endocrine therapy (US data) showed no higher risk for either drug class and a lower risk in tamoxifen users (age-standardised incidence rate tamoxifen vs unexposed: 26.02 vs 35.19 per 1000 person-years, HR: 0.74, 95% 0.60 to 0.92; age-standardised incidence rate AI vs unexposed: 36.82 vs 35.19, HR: 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.10). Similar patterns were seen for other cardiovascular outcomes (arrhythmia, heart failure and valvular heart disease). As expected, there was more venous thromboembolism in tamoxifen compared with both AI users and those unexposed. CONCLUSIONS: Higher risks of several cardiovascular outcomes among AI compared with tamoxifen users appeared to be driven by protective effects of tamoxifen, rather than cardiotoxic effects of AIs.