Novel Biomarkers: Utility in Patients with Acute Chest Pain and Relationship to Coronary Artery Disease on Coronary CT Angiography

  • Adefolakemi Babatunde
  • Asim Rizvi
  • Quynh A. Truong
Cardiac Computed Tomography (S Achenbach and T Villines, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Cardiac Computed Tomography


Acute chest pain remains one of the most common patient presentations encountered in the emergency department. With the evolution of biomarkers and improvement in cardiac imaging there has been advancement in risk stratification of patients, but millions of dollars continue to be spent in the assessment of chest pain. Investigators have explored possible comparative alternatives to the traditional work up of chest pain. In this review, we will discuss the current state of biomarker use in the evaluation of acute chest pain. We will review established and emerging circulating biomarkers and their addition to cardiac CT for appropriate diagnosis of coronary artery disease.


Biomarkers Cardiac CT Coronary artery disease 


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Pitts SR, Niska RW, Xu J, National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, et al. emergency department summary. Natl Health Stat Rep. 2006;2008:1–38.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Panju AA, Hemmelgarn BR, Guyatt GH, et al. The rational clinical examination. Is this patient having a myocardial infarction? JAMA. 1998;280:1256–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaul P, Newby LK, Fu Y, et al. Troponin T and quantitative ST-segment depression offer complementary prognostic information in the risk stratification of acute coronary syndrome patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:371–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vafaie M, Katus HA. Myocardial infarction. New universal definition and its implementation in clinical practice. Herz. 2013;38:821–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Libby P, Braunwald E. Braunwald's heart disease : a textbook of cardiovascular medicine. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ohman EM, Armstrong PW, White HD, et al. Risk stratification with a point-of-care cardiac troponin T test in acute myocardial infarction. GUSTOIII Investigators. Global Use of Strategies To Open Occluded Coronary Arteries. Am J Cardiol. 1999;84:1281–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heidenreich PA, Alloggiamento T, Melsop K, et al. The prognostic value of troponin in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:478–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Antman EM, Tanasijevic MJ, Thompson B, et al. Cardiac-specific troponin I levels to predict the risk of mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1342–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ohman EM, Armstrong PW, Christenson RH, et al. Cardiac troponin T levels for risk stratification in acute myocardial ischemia. GUSTO IIA Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1333–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keller T, Zeller T, Peetz D, et al. Sensitive troponin I assay in early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:868–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christenson RH, Duh SH, Newby LK, et al. Cardiac troponin T and cardiac troponin I: relative values in short-term risk stratification of patients with acute coronary syndromes. GUSTO-IIa Investigators. Clin Chem. 1998;44:494–501.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giannitsis E, Katus HA. Comparison of cardiac troponin T and troponin I assays–implications of analytical and biochemical differences on clinical performance. Clin Lab. 2004;50:521–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maynard SJ, Menown IB, Adgey AA. Troponin T or troponin I as cardiac markers in ischaemic heart disease. Heart. 2000;83:371–3.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Than M, Aldous S, Lord SJ, et al.: A 2-Hour Diagnostic Protocol for Possible Cardiac Chest Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med 2013.Google Scholar
  15. 15.••
    Litt HI, Gatsonis C, Snyder B, et al. CT angiography for safe discharge of patients with possible acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1393–403. A multicenter prospective study to evaluate the safety of CCTA in low risk ED patients with suspected ACS. It was found that early CCTA use in the ED was safe and led to a shorter hospital stay and more frequent ED discharge when compared to standard care strategy. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.••
    Hoffmann U, Truong QA, Schoenfeld DA, et al. Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:299–308. A multicenter prospective study comparing early implementation of CCTA with standard care strategy in the ED evaluation of low-to-intermediate risk patients with suspected ACS. CCTA was found to improve the efficiency of clinical decision making, reducing the length of hospital stay but led to increased diagnostic testing and radiation exposure. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.••
    Goldstein JA, Chinnaiyan KM, Abidov A, et al. The CT-STAT (Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Systematic Triage of Acute Chest Pain Patients to Treatment) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1414–22. A randomized multicenter trial of low risk ED chest pain patients comparing early CCTA strategy to a MPI strategy. It was found that CCTA was safe and led to more rapid evaluation compared with MPI, and was associated with lower total ED costs. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.••
    Hulten E, Pickett C, Bittencourt MS, et al. Outcomes after coronary computed tomography angiography in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:880–92. A meta-analysis including the three large randomized multicenter trials (CT-STAT, ACRIN-PA, and ROMICAT II) comparing CCTA with standard care strategy. These trials provide enough evidence for the early use of CCTA in ED patients with low to intermediate risk of CAD. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Januzzi Jr JL, Bamberg F, Lee H, et al. High-sensitivity troponin T concentrations in acute chest pain patients evaluated with cardiac computed tomography. Circulation. 2010;121:1227–34.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.••
    Haaf P, Reichlin T, Twerenbold R, et al. Risk stratification in patients with acute chest pain using three high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays. Eur Heart J. 2014. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht218. A prospective study demonstrating the role of emerging biomarkers in acute chest pain patients presenting to ED.Google Scholar
  21. 21.•
    Truong QA, Bayley J, Hoffmann U, et al.: Multi-marker strategy of natriuretic peptide with either conventional or high-sensitivity troponin-T for acute coronary syndrome diagnosis in emergency department patients with chest pain: from the “Rule Out Myocardial Infarction using Computer Assisted Tomography” (ROMICAT) trial. Am Heart J 2012, 163:972-979 e971. A comparison of single versus dual biomarker strategy for ACS diagnosis. It was found that combining natriuretic peptides to troponins would allow for better reclassification of ACS. Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Truong QA, Siegel E, Karakas M, et al. Relation of natriuretic peptides and midregional proadrenomedullin to cardiac chamber volumes by computed tomography in patients without heart failure: from the ROMICAT Trial. Clin Chem. 2010;56:651–60.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.•
    Bhardwaj A, Truong QA, Peacock WF, et al.: A multicenter comparison of established and emerging cardiac biomarkers for the diagnostic evaluation of chest pain in the emergency department. Am Heart J 2011, 162:276-282 e271. A prospective study to assess the role of novel cardiac biomarkers for the diagnostic evaluation of ACS. It was found that NT-proBNP and hsTnI added diagnostic information to cTnT. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tello-Montoliu A, Marin F, Roldan V, et al. A multimarker risk stratification approach to non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: implications of troponin T, CRP, NT pro-BNP and fibrin D-dimer levels. J Intern Med. 2007;262:651–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.•
    Maisel A, Mueller C, Neath SX, et al. Copeptin helps in the early detection of patients with acute myocardial infarction: primary results of the CHOPIN trial (Copeptin Helps in the early detection Of Patients with acute myocardial INfarction). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:150–60. A multicenter prospective study showing that the combination of copeptin and troponin could allow safe rule out of AMI in ED patients with suspected ACS and provides a NPV strong enough to avoid serial testing. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.•
    Sebbane M, Lefebvre S, Kuster N, et al. Early rule out of acute myocardial infarction in ED patients: value of combined high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T and ultrasensitive copeptin assays at admission. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31:1302–8. A prospective study to evaluate the added significance of us-copeptin for early rule out of AMI in ED patients with acute chest pain. The us-copeptin combined with hs-cTnT may allow safe and early rule out of NSTEMI in patients with negative results on both markers. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karakas M, Januzzi Jr JL, Meyer J, et al. Copeptin does not add diagnostic information to high-sensitivity troponin T in low- to intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain: results from the rule out myocardial infarction by computed tomography (ROMICAT) study. Clin Chem. 2011;57:1137–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Balmelli C, Meune C, Twerenbold R, et al. Comparison of the performances of cardiac troponins, including sensitive assays, and copeptin in the diagnostic of acute myocardial infarction and long-term prognosis between women and men. Am Heart J. 2013;166:30–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schlett CL, Truong QA, Ahmed W, et al. High-sensitivity troponin T and C-reactive protein to identify patients without cardiac structural and functional abnormalities as assessed by cardiac CT and SPECT imaging: can biomarkers predict cardiac health? Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;29:865–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Otake H, Shite J, Shinke T, et al. Relation between plasma adiponectin, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and coronary plaque components in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Am J Cardiol. 2008;101:1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zamani P, Schwartz GG, Olsson AG, et al. Inflammatory biomarkers, death, and recurrent nonfatal coronary events after an acute coronary syndrome in the MIRACL study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2:e003103.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Van den Steen PE, Dubois B, Nelissen I, et al. Biochemistry and molecular biology of gelatinase B or matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9). Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2002;37:375–536.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Devarajan P, Johnston JJ, Ginsberg SS, et al. Structure and expression of neutrophil gelatinase cDNA. Identity with type IV collagenase from HT1080 cells. J Biol Chem. 1992;267:25228–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liu P, Sun M, Sader S. Matrix metalloproteinases in cardiovascular disease. Can J Cardiol. 2006;22(Suppl B):25B–30.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.•
    Kobayashi N, Hata N, Kume N, et al. Matrix metalloproteinase-9 for the earliest stage acute coronary syndrome. Circ J. 2011;75:2853–61. A study that compared the diagnostic value of MMP-9 versus hsTnT for an early stage ACS (<4 hours of onset). It was found that MMP-9 levels were elevated earlier than hs-TnT and thus making MMP-9 more useful for diagnosing earliest stage ACS but not late ACS. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang KF, Huang PH, Chiang CH, et al. Usefulness of plasma matrix metalloproteinase-9 level in predicting future coronary revascularization in patients after acute myocardial infarction. Coron Artery Dis. 2013;24:23–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Searle J, Shih J, Muller R, et al. The role of myeloperoxidase (MPO) for prognostic evaluation in sensitive cardiac troponin I negative chest pain patients in the emergency department. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2013;2:203–10.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.•
    Graner M, Tikkanen E, Rimpila O, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of myeloperoxidase to identify acute coronary syndrome in subjects with chest pain. Ann Med. 2013;45:322–7. A study showing that the addition of MPO in biomarker panels might improve diagnostic accuracy for ACS. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Meuwese MC, Stroes ES, Hazen SL, et al. Serum myeloperoxidase levels are associated with the future risk of coronary artery disease in apparently healthy individuals: the EPIC-Norfolk Prospective Population Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:159–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sharma UC, Pokharel S, van Brakel TJ, et al. Galectin-3 marks activated macrophages in failure-prone hypertrophied hearts and contributes to cardiac dysfunction. Circulation. 2004;110:3121–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Falcone C, Lucibello S, Mazzucchelli I, et al. Galectin-3 plasma levels and coronary artery disease: a new possible biomarker of acute coronary syndrome. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2011;24:905–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lilly LS. Harvard Medical School. Pathophysiology of heart disease : a collaborative project of medical students and faculty. 5th ed. Baltimore, MD: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Virmani R, Kolodgie FD, Burke AP, et al. Lessons from sudden coronary death: a comprehensive morphological classification scheme for atherosclerotic lesions. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2000;20:1262–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Varnava AM, Mills PG, Davies MJ. Relationship between coronary artery remodeling and plaque vulnerability. Circulation. 2002;105:939–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.•
    Bamberg F, Truong QA, Koenig W, et al. Differential associations between blood biomarkers of inflammation, oxidation, and lipid metabolism with varying forms of coronary atherosclerotic plaque as quantified by coronary CT angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;28:183–92. A study to assess the relationship between cardiac biomarkers and coronary atherosclerotic plaque morphology as determined by CCTA. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.•
    Ahmed W, Schlett CL, Uthamalingam S, et al. Single resting hsTnT level predicts abnormal myocardial stress test in acute chest pain patients with normal initial standard troponin. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:72–82. A sub-study of ROMICAT I to assess the diagnostic accuracy of single hsTnT measurement for the detection of abnormal nuclear imaging and CAD in ED patients with acute chest pain. It was found that patients with an elevated hsTnT were more likely to have an abnormal nuclear imaging.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Karakas M, Koenig W. Coronary CT angiography for acute chest pain. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1664–5. author reply 1666.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Braunwald E, Bonow RO. Braunwald's heart disease : a textbook of cardiovascular medicine. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2012.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Troughton R, Michael Felker G, Januzzi Jr JL. Natriuretic peptide-guided heart failure management. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:16–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Thompson D, Pepys MB, Wood SP. The physiological structure of human C-reactive protein and its complex with phosphocholine. Structure. 1999;7:169–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adefolakemi Babatunde
    • 1
  • Asim Rizvi
    • 2
  • Quynh A. Truong
    • 2
  1. 1.Internal Medicine DepartmentDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Cardiac MR PET CT Program, Division of Cardiology and Department of RadiologyMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations