Yes. With CK-MB subform we can characterize more than 80 percent of the heart attacks by just administering one test when they first arrive in the emergency room, and then again an hour later. After six hours of onset, it goes up to 90 percent certainty. Plus, the test only takes about 20 minutes and costs the same as the other tests.

You've been using this at Baylor for a few years now. Tell me about the typical person you've been testing.

Someone comes in with chest pains, they are scared -- they should be, I would be, too, probably even more so. But there are a lot of reasons why you can have pain. You can have angina, or you can have indigestion and you can have all of those things that can give you the same chest pains. With this test, an hour later you can find out that everything is normal and that it's not a heart attack, and that you should electively go sometime this week or next and see a gastroenterologist. That is obviously a tremendous relief to anyone who thought they were having a heart attack. And this is the consistent story of people who have been using this test. Also, you don't want to fill up your intensive care unit with people who end up going home within nine hours, which is what the statistics show.

But isn't it better to take the precaution and admit the patient?

It's obviously better to admit them to the hospital and find out that it's negative and then send them home. The most common thing people sue for is chest pains sent home that are heart attacks, and so we overdo it the other way. All I'm saying is that a lot of this can be avoided by using an early marker, such as the CK-MB subform. It's not acceptable to put someone into a coronary care unit or intensive care if you had some way of knowing that they didn't have to be there. It's not exactly psychologically pleasing to be in a coronary care unit with all those beepers going off, and needles sticking out of you everywhere, and everybody monitoring you thinking you have had [or are having] a heart attack, and find out a few hours later now you didn't have one and it was unrelated.

Why aren't more hospitals using this test?

I don't know the answer to that. I developed this test about eight years ago. Maybe they were waiting for a study like this -- it's the first one to be double-blind [meaning that both the people in the lab administering the test and the doctors don't know] and compared with all the other tests. In medicine, we want this thing called "evidence-based medicine." As you know, there are lots of things in medicine that take five or six years to catch on. There are some other hospitals using it right now, at least 20 to 30 hospitals, and people in other countries, like England, Holland, Germany, Belgium and Japan.

Take me through the basics of your study and describe how you conducted the CK-MB subform study.

Over the course of eight months -- seven days a week and 24 hours a day -- we tested 995 patients with chest pain for CK-MB subform, a molecule the heart releases when it undergoes damage. And if you measure just the total amount of CK-MB in the blood you have to wait about 10 to 12 hours. But if you look at these subforms, you can see how one, of the two, changes and compare it to the other one, which remains unchanged. It's that ratio that we measure to pick up the early diagnosis. And within a couple of hours, the ratio changes. The basis of the new test is to pick it up and quantify that ratio.

How about these other early markers, like CK-MB myoglobin and total CK-MB and troponin T and I? Are they effective tests?

People have the impression that cardiac troponin I and T are early markers. Now the literature doesn't say that, but docs think that. In my study, after six hours, they only show about 50 to 60 percent positivity rate, which means that you have to wait up to 14 hours to get 90 percent sensitivity. Myoglobin, on the other hand, is not a bad test for early diagnosis, it has a 78 percent sensitivity.

You speak a lot about reducing the hospital's costs. Is this what it is about, perhaps at the expense of the patient?

No. No. 1, this is about doing proper treatment. Because if you are having a heart attack, you use a clot buster. But if you aren't having a heart attack and you have unstable angina, and you were given a clot buster, it increases your chance of dying. I don't want to make it look like it's just about saving money.

Most people, outside of the 10 percent having heart attacks and 20 percent with unstable angina, do not need to be admitted to the hospital that night. They can be worked on electively, and it would save billions of dollars a year.
salon.com | April 12, 1999

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

  Get a printer-friendly version

  E-mail a friend about this article

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Search Salon