Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Serial multiple biomarkers in the assessment of suspected acute coronary syndrome: multiple infarct markers in chest pain (MIMIC) study
  1. Stephen PJ Macdonald1,2,3,
  2. Yusuf Nagree3,4,
  3. Daniel M Fatovich1,2,3,
  4. Michael Phillips2,3,
  5. Simon GA Brown1,2,3
  1. 1Centre for Clinical Research in Emergency Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia
  2. 2Western Australian Institute for Medical Research, Perth, Australia
  3. 3University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
  4. 4Emergency Medicine, Fremantle Hospital, Fremantle, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Stephen Macdonald, Emergency Department, Armadale Health Service, PO Box 460, Armadale WA6992, Australia; stephen.macdonald{at}


Objective To evaluate the accuracy of a 2-h serial multiple biomarker (SMB) protocol for exclusion of myocardial infarction (MI) in the Emergency Department.

Methods A prospective, multicentre, observational study enrolled patients undergoing evaluation for possible MI. Blood samples at presentation and 2 h later were analysed for myoglobin, creatinine kinase-MB, troponin-I and B-natriuretic peptide. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score and National Heart Foundation of Australia/Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (NHF/CSANZ) guideline for acute coronary syndrome were used to determine clinical risk. Primary outcome was MI diagnosed at index presentation. Secondary outcome was composite of all-cause mortality, MI and previously unplanned coronary revascularisation within 30 days.

Results 1758 patients were recruited. 168 (11%) of 1501 with data sufficient for analysis had MI, and 223 (14%) of 1620 had a secondary outcome. SMB sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.94) and 0.41 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.44) for MI. For 30-day outcome, SMB sensitivity and specificity were 0.84 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.88) and 0.41 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.44), compared with standard 8–12 h troponin sensitivity and specificity of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.84) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97). Combined with risk scores, SMB had sensitivity and specificity for MI of 0.99 (0.96 to 1.00) and 0.11 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.12) for TIMI score 0, compared with 0.98 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.99) and 0.31 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.34) for NHF/CSANZ low/intermediate risk groups.

Conclusions SMB alone is not sufficiently sensitive to exclude MI. Combined with risk scoring, SMB appears to identify patients at lower risk. This requires prospective validation.

  • Chest pain
  • acute coronary syndrome
  • myocardial infarction
  • biological markers
  • early diagnosis
  • cardiac care
  • care systems
  • diagnosis
  • clinical assessment
  • chest – non-trauma
  • acute myocardial infarct
  • research
  • clinical
  • emergency care systems
  • efficiency
  • data management
  • emergency departments
  • clinical care
  • epidemiology
  • thrombolysis
  • analgesia pain control

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Funding The study was funded entirely by a grant from the Western Australian Department of Health Innovation Fund. Alere Australia, Inc provided loan of analytical devices for the biomarker tests used in the study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

  • Competing interests SPJM and YN have spoken at meetings sponsored by Alere Australia Inc, although no payment was received or expenses claimed. SPJM has received materials from Alere to conduct independent research projects. None of the authors have any financial links with Alere or in any of its competitors. All authors are employed by the Health Department of Western Australia and/or the University of Western Australia.

  • Ethics approval Approval provided by South Metropolitan Area Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • Primary survey
    Geoffrey Hughes