Biochemical diagnosis of myocardial infarction evolves towards ESC/ACC consensus: Experiences from the Nordic countries

Figures & data

Table I.  Nordic hospitals reporting use of different markers.

	Invited	Returned	CK	LD	AST	CKMBact	CKMBmass	TnI	TnT	Myoglobin
Denmark	57	51 (90%)	3	4	0	16	26	8	41	3
Finland	29	11 (38%)	0	0	0	2	6	8	3	0
Iceland	6	6 (100%)	1	4	0	2	3	1	4	1
Norway	53	46 (87%)	1	0	1	2	32	13	28	0
Sweden	75	53 (71%)	0	2	0	0	41	22	27	2
Hospitals	220	167 (76%)	5	10	1	22	108	52	103	6
Percentage of responders			3.0%	6.0%	0.6%	13.3%	65.1%	31.3%	62.0%	3.6%

Figure 1. National differences in the use of troponin I (TnI) vs troponin T (TnT).

Figure 2. Percentage of hospitals indicating a one- or two-marker strategy.

Figure 3. Preferred marker in hospitals indicating a one-marker strategy.

Figure 4. National differences in cut-off values for troponin T (TnT) in the Nordic countries.

Table II.  Nordic countries: percentages of hospitals using a one- or two-marker strategy in detection of acute coronary syndrome.

Cardiac marker	Norway 1995 (Fretland et al.)	Norway 2004 (present study)	Sweden 1998 (Jernberg et al.)	Sweden 2004 (present study)	Denmark 1999 (Abedini et al.)	Denmark 2004 (present study)	Nordic countries 2004 (present study)
CKMBmass	70%^a	70%	64%	77%	72%	51%	65%
CKMBactivity	–	4%	32%	0%	28%	12%	13%
TnI or TnT	3.5%	89%	53%	92%	29%	96%	93%

^aThe survey does not distinguish between CKMB_mass and CKMB_activity.