Cardiovascular Biomarkers in the Early Discrimination of Type 2 Myocardial Infarction.

Importance: Rapid and accurate noninvasive discrimination of type 2 myocardial infarction (T2MI), which is because of a supply-demand mismatch, from type 1 myocardial infarction (T1MI), which arises via plaque rupture, is essential, because treatment differs substantially. Unfortunately, this is a major unmet clinical need, because even high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) measurement provides only modest accuracy. Objective: To test the hypothesis that novel cardiovascular biomarkers quantifying different pathophysiological pathways involved in T2MI and/or T1MI may aid physicians in the rapid discrimination of T2MI vs T1MI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international, multicenter prospective diagnostic study was conducted in 12 emergency departments in 5 countries (Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Poland, and the Czech Republic) with patients presenting with acute chest discomfort to the emergency departments. The study quantified the discrimination of hs-cTn T, hs-cTn I, and 17 novel cardiovascular biomarkers measured in subsets of consecutively enrolled patients against a reference standard (final diagnosis), centrally adjudicated by 2 independent cardiologists according to the fourth universal definition of MI, using all information, including cardiac imaging and serial measurements of hs-cTnT or hs-cTnI. Results: Among 5887 patients, 1106 (18.8%) had an adjudicated final diagnosis of MI; of these, 860 patients (77.8%) had T1MI, and 246 patients (22.2%) had T2MI. Patients with T2MI vs those with T1MI had lower concentrations of biomarkers quantifying cardiomyocyte injury hs-cTnT (median [interquartile range (IQR)], 30 (17-55) ng/L vs 58 (28-150) ng/L), hs-cTnI (median [IQR], 23 [10-83] ng/L vs 115 [28-576] ng/L; P < .001), and cardiac myosin-binding protein C (at presentation: median [IQR], 76 [38-189] ng/L vs 257 [75-876] ng/L; P < .001) but higher concentrations of biomarkers quantifying endothelial dysfunction, microvascular dysfunction, and/or hemodynamic stress (median [IQR] values: C-terminal proendothelin 1, 97 [75-134] pmol/L vs 68 [55-91] pmol/L; midregional proadrenomedullin, 0.97 [0.67-1.51] pmol/L vs 0.72 [0.53-0.99] pmol/L; midregional pro-A-type natriuretic peptide, 378 [207-491] pmol/L vs 152 [90-247] pmol/L; and growth differentiation factor 15, 2.26 [1.44-4.35] vs 1.56 [1.02-2.19] ng/L; all P < .001). Discrimination for these biomarkers, as quantified by the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, was modest (hs-cTnT, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.64-0.71]; hs-cTn I, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.67-0.74]; cardiac myosin-binding protein C, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.61-0.73]; C-terminal proendothelin 1, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.63-0.83]; midregional proadrenomedullin, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.60-0.73]; midregional pro-A-type natriuretic peptide, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.68-0.87]; and growth differentiation factor 15, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.79]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, biomarkers quantifying myocardial injury, endothelial dysfunction, microvascular dysfunction, and/or hemodynamic stress provided modest discrimination in early, noninvasive diagnosis of T2MI.

JOURNAL CLUB: Structured Reporting: The Voice of the Customer in an Ongoing Debate About the Future of Radiology Reporting.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this survey was to assess the perception, preferences, and expectations of recipients of radiology reports in terms of style and content. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2016, 3610 general practitioners and hospital-based physicians in northwestern Switzerland were invited to participate in a survey. The questionnaire consisted of a demographics section, a current satisfaction section, and a section addressing expectations and preferences concerning content and structure. The participants were asked to rate (range of scores, 1-10) four different layouts of radiology reports (text, structured text, tables, images) in terms of comprehensibility and efficiency. RESULTS: A total of 570 participants (132 general practitioners, 438 hospital physicians at five hospitals) completed the survey. Regarding layout preferences, structured text (median, 8) and images (median, 7) rated highest in terms of readability, time saving, and helpfulness in communication with patients compared with tables (median, 5) and unstructured text (median, 4). The participants responded that reports should give normal values as references (60% [344/570] positive), mention normal structures (50% [286/570] positive), and list additional findings in the summary (89% [507/570] positive). Positive ratings for a confidence statement (54% [308/570]), a list of differential diagnoses (89% [507/570]), and a recommendation (66% [377/570]) indicated an active radiologist's role is appreciated. Eighty percent (459/570) of respondents stated a report should allow fast and efficient reading. CONCLUSION: The voice of the customer approach shows referring physicians have distinct expectations and specific but predominantly coherent preferences with regard to radiology reporting. The survey results offer valuable specific feedback and a strong argument in favor of structured reporting.