Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0248365. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248365

Differentiation between myopericarditis and acute myocardial infarction on presentation in the emergency department using the admission C-reactive protein to troponin ratio

Simcha R Meisel 1,*, Hamuda Nashed 1, Randa Natour 1, Rami Abu Fanne 1, Majdi Saada 1, Naama Amsalem 1, Carmel Levin 1, Ofer Kobo 1, Aaron Frimerman 1, Yaniv Levi 1, Jameel Mohsen 1, Avraham Shotan 1, Ariel Roguin 1, Michael Kleiner-Shochat 1
Editor: Vincenzo Lionetti2
PMCID: PMC8062049  PMID: 33886564

Abstract

Background

The treatment of myopericarditis is different than that of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, since their clinical presentation is frequently similar it may be difficult to distinguish between these entities despite a disparate underlying pathogenesis. Myopericarditis is primarily an inflammatory disease associated with high C-reactive protein (CRP) and relatively low elevated troponin concentrations, while AMI is characterized by the opposite. We hypothesized that evaluation of the CRP/troponin ratio on presentation to the emergency department could improve the differentiation between these two related clinical entities whose therapy is different. Such differentiation should facilitate triage to appropriate and expeditious therapy.

Methods

We evaluated the CRP/troponin ratio on presentation among patients consecutively included in a large single center registry that included 1898 consecutive patients comprising 1025 ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, 518 Non-STEMI (NSTEMI) patients, and 355 patients diagnosed on discharge as myopericarditis. CRP and troponin were sampled on admission in all patients and their ratio was assessed against discharge diagnosis. ROC analysis of the CRP/troponin ratios evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of myopericarditis against all AMI, STEMI, and NSTEMI patients.

Results

Median admission CRP/troponin ratios were 84, 65, and 436 mg×ml/liter×ng in STEMI, NSTEMI and myopericarditis groups, respectively (p<0.001) demonstrating good differentiating capability. The Receiver-operator-curve of admission CRP/troponin ratio for diagnosis of myopericarditis against all AMI, STEMI, and NSTEMI patients yielded an area-under-the curve of 0.74, 0.73, and 0.765, respectively. CRP/troponin ratio>500 resulted in specificity exceeding 85%, and for a ratio>1000, specificity>92%.

Conclusion

The CRP/troponin ratio can serve as an effective tool to differentiate between myopericarditis and AMI. In the appropriate clinical context, the CRP/troponin ratio may preclude further evaluation.

Introduction

It is frequently difficult to differentiate on clinical grounds between myopericarditis and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) as the cause of an acute cardiac event [1] since both conditions present with acute chest pain, electrocardiographic changes and elevated troponin level [2, 3]. Occasionally, myopericarditis may mimic AMI and present acutely with typical ischemic symptoms, while the electrocardiogram may demonstrate ischemic changes or even simulate an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In fact, even echocardiography performed in patients with myopericarditis may demonstrate segmental wall motion abnormalities typical of an AMI and not show the expected pattern of diffuse hypokinesis [4] observed as patchy involvement on CMR [5]. In light of the specific diagnostic tests required and disparate therapeutic approach in these conditions, it is imperative to establish the diagnosis early, hopefully in the emergency department, in order to provide expeditiously the appropriate therapy. This may require further imaging or invasive tests. Any biochemical test that, in the appropriate clinical setting, could assist in distinguishing between myopericarditis and AMI would be helpful.

Troponin and C-reactive protein (CRP), the universal inflammatory factor [6], are generally elevated in both AMI and in myopericarditis. However, the primary pathological process in patients with myopericarditis is inflammation, whatever the etiology [1]. Therefore, it is typically associated with high levels of CRP [7] but with a proportionally smaller increase in the level of troponin released from damaged cardiomyocytes [8]. On the other hand, STEMI and to a lesser degree NSTEMI, with their attendant myonecrosis are associated with higher levels of troponin, while CRP level is also elevated in these conditions but not to the same extent as troponin (Fig 1). Hence, we aimed to test the hypothesis that the ratio of CRP to troponin level, expected to be high in the former and low in the latter, would improve our ability to differentiate on patient presentation between these often-similar clinical entities.

Fig 1. Central figure showing study rationale.

Fig 1

The primary pathologic process in myopericarditis is inflammation associated with high CRP and relatively low-range but higher than normal troponin concentrations, while myocardial infarction is characterized by elevated troponin with a relatively lower increase in CRP levels. The CRP/troponin biomarker will amplify these differences.

Methods and patients

The current study was based on our local heart institute registry that included all consecutive patients admitted between January 2011 and April 2017 with any type of chest pain with electrocardiographic changes and discharged after evaluation and therapy with either the diagnosis of AMI or myopericarditis. Patients with the discharge diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, decompensated heart failure, aortic dissection, and sepsis were excluded.

According to hospital routine, CRP and troponin are sampled on presentation to the emergency department in all patients. Admission CRP/troponin ratio was calculated for all patients and used for analysis of its ability to differentiate between patients diagnosed with myopericarditis and all AMI patients or between STEMI or NSTEMI patients only. The local institutional review board approved this retrospective registry-based analysis of prospectively collected data. Informed consent was waived due to the retrospective and diagnostic nature of the study. The study required no external funding.

Diagnosis myopericarditis is an inflammatory disease involving both the pericardium and the myocardium [1, 4]. Apart from its typical or atypical clinical presentation, medical circumstances such as a recent febrile illness or other conditions and elevated CRP and troponin, myopericarditis is mostly diagnosed by performing a CMR, or by excluding hemodynamically-significant obstructive coronary disease. In general, myopericarditis was diagnosed in the current study by the following: (1) Typical or atypical chest pain; (2) Elevated CRP; (3) Electrocardiographic changes, and (4) Either a CMR demonstrating the pathological pattern compatible with myopericarditis, or coronary or cardiac CT angiography excluding obstructive coronary disease. Usually, the echocardiogram showed segmental wall motion abnormalities and at times a diffuse hypokinetic pattern, with or without some degree of pericardial fluid. Frequently there was a history of recent febrile disease but this was not obligatory. AMI was diagnosed according to the ESC guidelines for NSTEMI [9] and STEMI [10] based on ischemic symptoms, typical dynamic changes on the electrocardiogram, and elevated troponin levels, in light of coronary artery anatomy on angiography.

CRP was measured in the current study by the particle enhanced immuno-turbidimetric assay with the upper normal reference level of 5 mg/L as described (CRPL3, C-Reactive Protein Gen.3, ref No.05172373 190, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany). Troponin T was measured in this study by the Sandwich principle with normal troponin T concentration of < 0.014 ng/ml (Troponin T hs, STAT ref No. 05092728. System information for COBASe 411 analyzer. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany). In the present study, the CRP was represented as mg/liter, while troponin levels were expressed as ng/ml in order to yield integer values for CRP/troponin. If troponin concentrations are expressed as ng/liter and used in the CRP/troponin ratio formula the result should be multiplied by 1000 to yield values as used in this paper. The submission contains the minimal data set including the values used to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of the CRP/troponin ratio to diagnose myopericarditis against AMI, STEMI and NSTEMI, as well as the prevalence of perimyocarditis within the CRP/troponin ratio deciles as percentage of total study population.

Statistics Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD or median (interquartile range) as appropriate. Categorical data were presented as absolute numbers and percent frequencies, with differences evaluated by the chi-square test or Fisher exact test as suitable. The student t test and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze differences between means.

Multivariate logistic regression model was applied to predict myopericarditis disease with adjustment to the independent parameters of CRP/troponin ratio, age and creatinine. We assessed CRP/troponin ratio and patient age in the model by their quartiles: 29, 29–117, 117–455, >455 and <50, 50–59, 59–60, >69 years, respectively.

To assess the ability of the CRP/troponin ratio to predict myopericarditis against AMI, STEMI, or NSTEMI, their areas under the receiver-operating curves (ROC) with corresponding confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive (NPV) values were calculated for several optional CRP/troponin values including the optimal value of the Youden J statistic. In addition, we have calculated the positive and negative likelihood ratios. The former reflects the likelihood of obtaining a positive test result among patients with myopericarditis compared to a positive result in those without myopericarditis. The latter ratio reflects the likelihood of a negative result among myopericarditis patients compared to the likelihood of a negative result among those without the condition. 2-sided p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 21.0 (Chicago, Illinois).

Results

The present study included 1898 patients comprising 1025 STEMI patients, of whom 232 patients did not undergo primary reperfusion due to late arrival, refusal or associated critical medical conditions, 518 NSTEMI patients and 355 patients diagnosed with myopericarditis (Table 1). All STEMI and NSTEMI patients were hospitalized in the cardiac care unit from January 2011 to April 2017, and 1509 of 1543 AMI patients underwent coronary angiography. All patients diagnosed as AMI in the medical wards were transferred during their hospital stay to the cardiac care unit for coronary angiography and therapy and were thus accounted for under the cardiac unit population. The registry also included 169 patients admitted to the cardiac care unit with the diagnosis or suspicion of AMI and discharged with the diagnosis of myopericarditis, and 186 patients admitted to the medical wards during the same period and discharged with the diagnosis of myopericarditis. Of the latter, 60 patients underwent coronary angiography that ruled out clinically significant coronary disease in 56 patients and lead to an intervention in 4 patients. Myopericarditis patients were younger (50.3±19.5 years) than the STEMI patients (60±13, p<0.001) and the NSTEMI patients (63±12, p<0.001) patients. The percentage of male patients among the STEMI patients was similar to that in NSTEMI patients but higher than that in the myopericarditis group (81.5% and 77% vs. 64%, p<0.0001). As expected, there was a higher prevalence of previous AMI or PCI, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia among AMI patients with the highest prevalence among NSTEMI patients (Table 1). Smoking was more prevalent in the myopericarditis group (66%) than in the NSTEMI (45%, p<0.001) or STEMI patients (39%, p<0.001). ST-segment elevation on the electrocardiogram was observed on presentation in 96% of the STEMI patients with the rest developing these changes during hospitalization. ST-elevation was apparent in only 31% of the myopericarditis patients (p<0.001). ST-segment depressions were evident in 32.4% of the NSTEMI patients but in only a few patients in the myopericarditis group (4.7%, p<0.001).

Table 1. The demographic and basic clinical characteristics including CRP and troponin levels and their ratio among study patient groups according to the diagnosis at discharge.

Variable STEMI (n = 1025) Non STEMI (n = 518) Myopericarditis (n = 355) p-value
Age 60±12.7 63±11.9 50.3±19.5 p<0.0011,2,3
Gender (M) 835 (81.5%) 401 (77.4%) 237 (63.7%) p<0.00011,2,3
S/P Congestive heart failure 57 (5.6%) 44 (8.5%) 40 (11%) p<0.051,2
S/P Myocardial infarction 240 (23.5%) 172 (33.3%) 29 (8%) p<0.0011,2,3
S/P percutaneous coronary intervention 276 (27.0%) 168 (32.6%) 41 (11%) p<0.0012,3
S/P cerebrovascular accident 59 (5.8%) 61 (11.8%) 22 (6.0%) p<0.011,3
Hypertension 605 (59.1%) 360 (69.5%) 162 (44.5%) p<0.0011,2,3
Hyperlipidemia 636 (62.1%) 377 (72.8%) 133 (36.5%) p<0.0011,2,3
Diabetes mellitus 253 (25.3%) 160 (31.1%) 73 (30.7%) p = 0.0171
Peripheral arterial disease 46 (4.5%) 49 (9.5%) 30 (8.2%) P<0.051,2
Chronic renal failure 97 (9.5%) 75 (14.5%) 55 (15.2%) P<0.051,2
Smoking 394 (38.7%) 232 (44.9%) 239 (65.7%) p<0.0011,2,3
ST-elevations 985 (96.1%) 10 (1.9%) 111 (30.6%) p<0.0011,2,3
ST-depressions 9 (0.9%) 168 (32.4%) 17 (4.7%) p<0.0011,2,3
T-wave inversions 9 (0.9%) 118 (22.8%) 60 (16.5%) p<0.0011,2,3
Death during admission 50 (4.9%) 13 (2.5%) 13 (3.6%) p = 0.0291
Segmental wall motion Score Index 1.65±0.46 1.44±0.44 1.34±0.48 p<0.011,2,3
CRP median [25–75] 7.2 [3.1–21.7] 6.3 [2.8–13.3] 32 [10.3–86.8] p<0.0011,2,3
Early cTn median [25–75] 0.07 [0.02–0.48] 0.07 [0.02–0.22] 0.04 [0.01–0.3] p<0.0523
CRP/cTn ratio median [25–75] 84.1 [20.9–308] 65 [25.6–213] 436 [93–3223] p<0.0012,3

1p- significance of difference between NSTEMI vs. STEMI;

2p- between NSTEMI vs. pericarditis; and

3p- between STEMI vs. pericarditis. CRP- C-reactive protein.

CRP sampled on presentation showed markedly higher values in the myopericarditis patients than among the NSTEMI and STEMI patients (Table 1, p<0.001). Troponin sampled on presentation showed similar values in STEMI and NSTEMI patients with slightly lower values in the myopericarditis group (p<0.05).

Fig 2 is a scatter plot of CRP vs. troponin values. Scrutiny of the localization of patient points on the CRP-troponin scatterplot showed a pattern of disparate distribution of points according to etiology. Those signifying myopericarditis patients were dispersed along the CRP-axis but usually at relatively lower troponin values. Points representing STEMI patients localize along and close to the troponin axis since these points were generally characterized by low CRP values and comparatively higher troponin values. Points representing NSTEMI patients were scattered in between, along the first half of the CRP axis at troponin values that were generally lower than troponin levels among STEMI patients.

Fig 2. Scatterplot of CRP vs. troponin on admission for study groups showing disparate point distribution.

Fig 2

Green circles signifying perimyocarditis patients are dispersed along the CRP axis at low troponin values. Points denoting STEMI patients localize typically along and closer to the troponin axis (blue circles) generally characterized by lower CRP values. Inset displays magnification of point scatter adjacent to origin. Red points representing NSTEMI patients are mostly characterized as expected by low CRP and troponin levels. cTn- cardiac troponin; CRP- C-reactive protein; STEMI- ST-elevation myocardial infarction; NSTEMI- Non STEMI.

Median CRP/troponin ratios sampled on presentation yielded significantly higher values in the myopericarditis patients than in both the STEMI and NSTEMI groups (p<0.0001, Table 1). There was a clear distinction of CRP/troponin ratios between study groups showing a divergence between the STEMI and the NSTEMI groups and the myopericarditis group (Fig 3, Table 1, p<0.0001).

Fig 3. Box plot of CRP/troponin ratio for the 3 study groups after exclusion of outliners beyond a limit of 750.

Fig 3

There is a clear distinction between the perimyocarditis group and all patients (STEMI or NSTEMI). CTR- CRP/troponin ratio; other abbreviations are the same as in Fig 2.

The third and fourth quartiles of CRP/troponin ratio compared to the first quartile were statistically significantly associated with myopericarditis (p = 0.005, p<0.0001 respectively). The second to fourth age quartiles compared with the first quartile were negatively associated with myopericarditis (all p<0.0001). That is, the younger the patient, the more likely was a diagnosis of myopericarditis. There was no correlation between creatinine concentration and the diagnosis of myopericarditis (p = 0.52).

The ROC for the CRP/troponin ratio sampled on admission for diagnosis of myopericarditis against all AMI patients, i.e., both STEMI and NSTEMI patients, yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.74 (CI: 0.7–0.77, p<0.0001, Fig 4A) with a Youden index of 501, and against STEMI patients yielded an AUC of 0.73 (CI: 0.69–0.76, p<0.0001) with a Youden index of 513 (Fig 4B). The ROC for the diagnosis of myopericarditis against NSTEMI patients yielded a slightly higher AUC (0.765, CI: 0.726–0.8, p<0.0001, Fig 4C). Fig 5 is a bar graph showing the prevalence of myopericarditis within deciles of the CRP/troponin ratio as percentage of total study population or as percentage of the patients within each CRP/troponin ratio decile. It clearly shows that with increasing CRP/troponin ratio the percentage of myopericarditis patients rises and so is its specificity.

Fig 4. The receiver-operating curve of the admission CRP/ troponin ratio for the diagnosis of perimyocarditis against STEMI and NSTEMI, or all acute myocardial infarction patients (A, AUC- 0.74, CI: 0.7–0.77, p<0.0001) or against STEMI patients only (B, AUC- 0.73, CI: 0.69–0.76, p<0.0001).

Fig 4

Figure abbreviations are the same as in Fig 2.

Fig 5. Bar graph of the prevalence of the diagnosis of perimyocarditis within the CTR deciles as percentage of total study population (gray) or as percentage of patients within each CTR decile (azure).

Fig 5

It can be appreciated that as the CTR increases the percentage of perimyocarditis patients increases and so is its specificity. CTR- CRP/troponin ratio.

Calculation of the positive and negative likelihood ratios of the CRP/troponin ratio>500 to yield a true diagnosis of myopericarditis in the study population including all myocardial infarction patients yielded 3.8 and 0.5, respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios of the CRP/troponin ratio>500 to diagnose myopericarditis among all study patients yielded 3.4 and 0.58 values, respectively.

A similar calculation of positive and negative likelihood ratios at CRP/troponin = 500 for myopericarditis against NSTEMI only yielded 4.96 and 0.56, and against STEMI only yielded 3.4 and 0.58, respectively. By the same token, the positive and negative likelihoods for a CRP/troponin ratio>1000 to diagnose myopericarditis against AMI were 6.6 and 0.64, against STEMI were 5.1 and 0.65, and against NSTEMI 14.7 and 0.62, respectively.

Discussion

The present study was designed to address the clinically relevant objective of assessing whether the CRP/troponin ratio obtained on patient admission to the hospital may aid in the differentiation between myopericarditis and STEMI (see central illustration). We reasoned that the CRP/troponin ratio, if found to be discriminative, could improve triage to the cardiac care unit or the cath lab for urgent PCI. In order to cover all options, we have analyzed the ability of CRP/troponin ratio on admission to differentiate myopericarditis patients from all AMI patients as well as from STEMI or NSTEMI patients only. We have shown in the present study, based on a registry of 1898 prospectively enlisted AMI and myopericarditis patients, that the use of admission CRP/troponin ratio serves as an aid in the triage of AMI patients by differentiating myopericarditis from AMI. The CRP/troponin ratio was characterized by a high negative predictive value along a large range of its value (Table 2). These results demonstrate a potential value for a high CRP/troponin ratio to support the diagnosis of myopericarditis in patients presenting with an acute cardiac syndrome when the clinical circumstances suggest low pre-test probability of obstructive coronary artery disease (Table 2).

Table 2. The accuracy of CRP/troponin ratio levels measured early on presentation in STEMI with or without NSTEMI patients for distinguishing myopericarditis from myocardial infarction.

CRP/troponin ratio Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV
CRP/Troponin in perimyocarditis vs. STEMI and NSTEMI` 501* 50.0 86.9 60.0 81.5
30 88.9 30.9 33.6 87.6
60 84.7 44.9 37.7 88.2
100 75.3 56.0 40.3 85.2
150 69.1 63.7 42.8 84.0
300 56.3 76.6 48.6 81.7
1000 39.9 94.0 72.3 79.9
CRP/Troponin in myopericarditis vs. STEMI 513* 49.7 85.7 67.8 73.7
30 88.9 30.6 43.8 81.9
60 84.7 43.9 47.8 82.5
100 75.3 53.7 49.8 78.2
150 69.1 61.4 52.1 76.6
300 56.3 74.3 57.0 73.6
1000 39.9 92.2 75.7 71.6
CRP/Troponin in myopericarditis vs. NSTEMI 414* 52.8 87.6 82.6 62.4
30 88.9 34.1 59.1 71.7
60 84.7 46.9 64.0 73.3
100 75.3 30.1 67.8 68.6
150 69.1 67.8 70.6 66.3
300 56.3 81.0 76.8 62.4
1000 39.9 97.3 94.3 59.2

Asterisks denote Youden values.

The primary pathologic process in myopericarditis is inflammation associated with high CRP and usually relatively low-range, though higher than normal, troponin concentrations. In contrast, myocardial infarction is characterized by elevated troponin with a relatively lower increase in CRP levels. The combination of CRP and troponin has been sporadically evaluated jointly to evaluate the risk of cardiac disease and death in stable end-stage renal failure patients on dialysis [11] or to assess prognosis in acute coronary patients [12]. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no study that evaluated the diagnostic value of the CRP/troponin ratio.

The scatter plot of CRP vs. troponin values shows a different localization of patients by diagnosis within the plot area (Fig 2). This 2-dimensional distribution underscores the capacity of the CRP/troponin ratio to aid in the discrimination between AMI and myopericarditis.

The calculation of the Youden J statistic provides an optimal value reconciling specificity and sensitivity. We, however, focused in the current analysis on specificity following the intention to reduce the rate of false positive events, namely, the number of patients admitted due to myocardial infarction but diagnosed and treated as myopericarditis. Consequently, a rather high CRP/troponin ratio, signifying high specificity, was selected as threshold for the diagnosis of myopericarditis in order to obtain a value beyond which the probability of active cardiac ischemia would be low. Hence, a high CRP/troponin value may assist in a tentative clinical diagnosis supporting a decision to avoid unnecessary diagnostic investigations or urgent procedures, frequently invasive in character. It is our opinion that implementation of the suggested CRP/troponin ratio criterion in the present population could probably have rendered most coronary angiograms performed in the myopericarditis patient subgroup included in the present study unnecessary. A box plot of the CRP/troponin ratios of study groups shows a clear distinction between groups (Fig 3). The results suggest that a high CRP/troponin ratio, e.g., ratio>500 corresponds to specificity of >85% for myopericarditis (Table 2), and may preclude the need for coronary angiography. The ROC of the CRP/troponin ratio on presentation for diagnosis of myopericarditis against all AMI patients or against STEMI patients only yielded similar results (AUC = 0.74 or 0.73, p<0.0001, Fig 4A and 4B), but a slightly higher area against NSTEMI patients (AUC = 0.765, CI: 0.726–0.8, p<0.0001, Fig 4C), all demonstrating a good differentiating capability. The prevalence of myopericarditis diagnosis within deciles of the CRP/troponin ratio as percentage of the total study population or as patient percentage within each CRP/troponin ratio decile rises with increasing CRP/troponin ratio and so is its specificity (Fig 5).

It seems plausible that the CRP/troponin ratio may serve as an additional biomarker tool to use in clinical practice in order to evaluate the probability of myopericarditis. Though requiring further assessment, it may be that a CRP/troponin ratio>250 could support a probable diagnosis of myopericarditis, whereas a ratio>500 can substantiate this diagnosis as definite or highly probable (Table 2). High negative predictive values, even at lower CRP/troponin ratios, represent the other side of the coin, showing that though the vast majority of AMI patients present with low CRP/troponin ratios, there are some myopericarditis patients with lower ratios, simulating a myonecrosis process, which raises the need to exclude active myocardial ischemia in these patients. We have realized that most myopericarditis patients most resembled NSTEMI by clinical presentation and electrocardiographic pattern. Therefore, the most important aspect was to compare the diagnostic yield of the CRP/troponin ratio to distinguish between these entities. The ratio demonstrated a very high specificity and positive likelihood values for a ratio>500–1000, which are the important indicators toward the goal of minimizing the incidence of FP diagnosis.

Limitations

Though possible bias in this retrospective registry-based study should be considered, the fact that consecutive patients were recorded prospectively virtually eliminates such an option. In the present registry maximal troponin values were reached in myocardial infarction patients either on the day of presentation or on the following day, whereas CRP in myopericarditis patients usually increased significantly on the second and third day of hospitalization (8). Unfortunately, these values are usually not available in many patients. If available, their ratio would have increased the disparity between the CRP/troponin ratio of study groups and its diagnostic accuracy. The design of the present study was based on the practiced routine in many hospitals, and represents a pragmatic protocol, which we have found useful for the clinical differentiation between AMI and myopericarditis.

In conclusion, we have shown in this study that the admission CRP/troponin ratio has the potential to assist in the discrimination between the phenotypically similar entities of AMI and myopericarditis.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Imazio M, Trinchero R. Myopericarditis: Etiology, management, and prognosis. Int J Cardiol. 2008;127(1):17–26. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2007.10.053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lee PT, See CK, Chiam PT, Lim ST. Electrocardiographic changes in acute perimyocarditis. Singapore Med J. 2015; 56 (1): e1–3. 10.11622/smedj.2015015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.O’Donoghue ML, Morrow DA, Cannon CP, Jarolim P, Desai NR, Sherwood MW, et al. Multimarker Risk Stratification in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016; 5(5):e002586. 10.1161/JAHA.115.002586 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Leitman M, Tyomkin V, Peleg E, Copel L, Vered Z. Left ventricular function in acute inflammatory peri-myocardial diseases- new insights and long-term follow-up. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2012; 10:42. 10.1186/1476-7120-10-42 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Goitein O, Matetzky S, Beinart R, Di Segni E, Hod H, Bentancuret A, et al. Acute myocarditis: noninvasive evaluation with cardiac MRI and transthoracic echocardiography. Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 192 (1): 254–258. 10.2214/AJR.08.1281 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pepys MB, Hirschfield GM. C-reactive protein: a critical update. J Clin Invest. 2003; 111:1805–12. 10.1172/JCI18921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Imazio M, Brucato A, Maestroni S, Cumetti D, Dominelli A, Natale G, et al. Prevalence of C-Reactive Protein Elevation and Time Course of Normalization in Acute Pericarditis Implications for the Diagnosis, Therapy, and Prognosis of Pericarditis. Circulation. 2011; 123: 1092–7. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.986372 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Goitein O, Sabag A, Koperstein R, et al. Role of C-reactive protein in evaluating the extent of myocardial inflammation in acute myocarditis. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 2015: 17 (Suppl 1): 291. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Collet JP, Thiele H, Barbato E, Barthélémy O, Bauersachs J, Bhatt DL, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. European Heart Journal. 2020; 00, 1–79. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa624 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Bueno H, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European Heart Journal. 2018; 39 (2): 119–77. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.deFilippi C, Wasserman S, Rosanio S, Tiblier E, Sperger H, Tocchi M, et al. Cardiac troponin T and C-reactive protein for predicting prognosis, coronary atherosclerosis, and cardiomyopathy in patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis. JAMA. 2003; 290 (3):353–59. 10.1001/jama.290.3.353 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.James SK, Armstrong P, Barnathan E, Califf R, Lindahl B, Siegbahn A, et al. Troponin and C-reactive protein have different relations to subsequent mortality and myocardial infarction after acute coronary syndrome: a GUSTO-IV substudy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 41:916–24. 10.1016/s0735-1097(02)02969-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Vincenzo Lionetti

8 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-40200

Differentiation between Myopericarditis and Acute Myocardial Infarction on Presentation in the Emergency Department Using the Admission C-reactive Protein to Troponin Ratio

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Meisel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

All issues raised by expert reviewers are required.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 22 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vincenzo Lionetti, M.D., PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include in your Methods section (or in Supplementary Information files) the participating hospitals/institutions.

In the Methods section, please specify the source of the socio-demographic data that were used for this study.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a single-center, retrospective study evaluating the C-reactive protein (CRP) to troponin ratio on presentation in 1898 patients admitted to the Emergency Department for chest pain. The Authors evaluated the performance of the CRP/troponin ratio alone to distinguish between myocardial infarction (MI; 81% of patients) and myopericarditis (19%). Median ratio values were much higher in patients with myopericarditis (p<0.001), with a fair performance at receiver operating characteristic analysis (area under the curve of 0.74), and a specificity >85% for a CRP/troponin ratio >500 (identified through the Youden method). The Authors conclude that the CRP/troponin ratio may allow to effectively discriminate between myopericarditis and MI. This conclusion is very reasonable, and may be seen as a way to reappraise the current diagnostic workup of chest pain, which includes the search for a dynamic troponin elevation and the assessment of inflammatory biomarkers, including CRP, as part of a broader evaluation. The identification of a rule-out cut-off for MI is particularly interesting in order to avoid further testing including urgent coronary angiography. In my opinion, this last point should be explored in a greater detail. Please find some other comments below.

The negative predictive value (NPV) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) are important parameters for rule-out cut-off. Please provide their values for the 500 cut-off and check if you can find other cut-offs that maximize the NPV or with a LR- <0.1.

After identifying a rule-out cut-off in the whole population, please assess its performance across different age categories, given that patients with MI are usually older than those with myopericarditis (as confirmed in your cohort).

You should also assess the diagnostic performance of the troponin/CRP ratio to distinguish myopericarditis from NSTEMI alone.

Please evaluate also the diagnostic performance of your ratio across categories of renal function, which is known to influence troponin values.

Troponin values should be better expressed as ng/L. Furthermore, please specify throughout the paper that you are evaluating high-sensitivity troponin T.

To better quantify the added value of the troponin/CRP ratio, you may consider measuring the added value of the troponin/CRP ratio over troponin or CRP alone, or a combination of variables (for example, ischemic changes on ECG, history of coronary artery disease, typical chest pain, etc.) through discrimination analysis.

Please specify if the diagnosis of MI was based on European Society of Cardiology guidelines.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study aimed to assess the diagnostic role of CRP/troponin ratio to differentiate between myopericarditis and acute myocardial infarction. The Authors observed that high values of CRP/troponin ratio may support the diagnosis of myopericarditis in patients presenting with an acute cardiac syndrome. Data are convincing and correctly analyzed and discussed, however since the echocardiographic pattern of global hypokinesia is a strong predictor of myocarditis, it should be more useful to include in multivariate analysis also the presence of global hypokinesia. It is possible to hypotesize that CRP/Troponin ratio may be more useful to discriinate between ACS and myocarditis only in the subset of patients presenting with regional LV dysfunction and without pericarditis

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Alberto Aimo

Reviewer #2: Yes: no

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0248365. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248365.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Feb 2021

Reviewer #1: This is a single-center, retrospective study evaluating the C-reactive protein (CRP) to troponin ratio on presentation in 1898 patients admitted to the Emergency Department for chest pain. The Authors evaluated the performance of the CRP/troponin ratio alone to distinguish between myocardial infarction (MI; 81% of patients) and myopericarditis (19%). Median ratio values were much higher in patients with myopericarditis (p<0.001), with a fair performance at receiver operating characteristic analysis (area under the curve of 0.74), and a specificity >85% for a CRP/troponin ratio >500 (identified through the Youden method). The Authors conclude that the CRP/troponin ratio may allow effective discrimination between myopericarditis and MI. This conclusion is very reasonable, and may be seen as a way to reappraise the current diagnostic workup of chest pain, which includes the search for a dynamic troponin elevation and the assessment of inflammatory biomarkers, including CRP, as part of a broader evaluation. The identification of a rule-out cut-off for MI is particularly interesting in order to avoid further testing including urgent coronary angiography. In my opinion, this last point should be explored in a greater detail. Please find some other comments below.

The negative predictive value (NPV) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) are important parameters for rule-out cut-off. Please provide their values for the 500 cut-off and check if you can find other cut-offs that maximize the NPV or with a LR- <0.1.

We have calculated the positive and negative likelihood ratios for the different subgroups as requested by the reviewer and have incorporated these calculations at the end of the results section. However, our opinion is that the indicators that should be optimized are the specificity, PPV, and possibly the positive LR. In other words, we should strive to minimize FP diagnosis of myopericarditis. This is because the consequence of a false-positive diagnosis is that an ischemic patient is considered to have myopericarditis, the result of which is inappropriate therapy (anti-inflammatory therapy rather than anti-aggregant and an invasive evaluation).

Calculation of the positive and negative likelihood ratios of the CRP/troponin ratio>500 to yield a true diagnosis of myopericarditis among all study patients yielded 3.8 and 0.5, respectively. A similar calculation of positive and negative likelihood ratios at CRP/troponin≥500 for myopericarditis against NSTEMI only yielded 4.96 and 0.56, and against STEMI only yielded 3.4 and 0.58, respectively. By the same token, the positive and negative likelihoods for a CRP/troponin ratio>1000 to diagnose myopericarditis against AMI were 6.6 and 0.64, against STEMI these were 5.1 and 0.65, and against NSTEMI- 14.7 and 0.62, respectively. Finally, we have realized that myopericarditis most resembled NSTEMI by clinical presentation and electrocardiographic pattern and, therefore as remarked by the reviewer, the most important aspect was to compare the diagnostic yield of the CRP/troponin ratio to distinguish between these entities. We have added all relevant statistical indicators (see additional values in Table 2) and found very high specificity and positive likelihood values for a ratio>500-1000, which are the important indicators as mentioned above (minimizing the incidence of FP).

After identifying a rule-out cut-off in the whole population, please assess its performance across different age categories, given that patients with MI are usually older than those with myopericarditis (as confirmed in your cohort).

As a response to the comment by the reviewer a multivariate logistic regression model was performed in order to predict myopericarditis disease with adjustment to the independent parameters of age, CRP/troponin ratio, and creatinine. Patient age and CRP/troponin ratio were assessed in the model by their quartiles: <50, 50-59, 59-60, >69 years for age, and 29, 29-117, 117-455, >455 for the CRP/troponin ratio.

The second to the fourth age quartiles compared with the first quartile were negatively associated with myopericarditis (all p<0.0001). The younger the patient, the more likely was a diagnosis of myopericarditis. The third and fourth quartiles of CRP/troponin ratio compared with the first quartile were statistically significantly associated with myopericarditis (p=0.005, p<0.0001 respectively). There was no correlation between creatinine concentration and myopericarditis (p=0.52).

You should also assess the diagnostic performance of the troponin/CRP ratio to distinguish myopericarditis from NSTEMI alone.

We must admit that this requirement, as suggested by the reviewer, fits very well the character of the findings in this study, since the vast majority of myopericarditis patients presented with an ECG pattern and echocardiographic findings compatible with a NSTEMI and not as STEMI patients. We have, therefore, evaluated the accuracy of CRP/troponin (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV) to differentiate myopericarditis from NSTEMI (revised Table 2). We have also added to the revised paper the appropriate ROC figure not presented in the original version of the paper. In addition, we have evaluated the positive and negative likelihood ratios for CRP/troponin ratio=500 and 1000 to differentiate between myopericarditis and NSTEMI yielding the ratios of 4.96 and 0.56, respectively. These values are frequently encountered in these patients with myopericarditis (e.g. troponin- 0.04 ng/ml or [40 ng/liter] or 80 ng/liter and CRP- 40 mg/liter yielding a CRP/troponin of 1000 and 500, respectively). We have added to the conclusion section this consideration as well as the conversion factor for the sake of those centers who express troponin as ng/liter. At any rate, it is the novel concept that we describe and matters while every center can choose its ratio and to be applied in the clinical arena.

Please evaluate also the diagnostic performance of your ratio across categories of renal function, which is known to influence troponin values.

This is a good point and the comment makes sense, as the reviewer has probably assumed, that increased creatinine level representing lower renal function would lead to increased troponin level in the absence of ischemia. This could attenuate the accuracy of the CRP/troponin ratio to diagnose myopericarditis by spuriously decreasing its value.

We thank the reviewer for this comment, since mildly elevated troponin levels in the presence of decreased renal function could certainly reduce the diagnostic accuracy of the CRP/troponin ratio even in the absence of ischemia. However, we assumed that such an effect would be minor since troponin usually demonstrates a 2-3-fold increase in patients with mild to moderate kidney failure whereas CRP increases 10 to 20 fold in myopericarditis. So, this effect was not expected to invalidate the diagnostic value of the CRP/troponin ratio. Anyway, as a response to the reviewer's comments, we have performed a logistic regression analysis to evaluate the relative effect of age, renal function and CRP/troponin ratio on the diagnosis of myopericarditis (Second comment, see above). The probability of pericarditis decreased by 10% for every 1-year increase in age (p<0.001), while creatinine level did not affect the accuracy of the CRP/ratio to diagnose myopericarditis. There was no correlation between creatinine concentration and myopericarditis (p=0.52). We incorporated this analysis in the revised manuscript.

Troponin values should be better expressed as ng/L. Furthermore, please specify throughout the paper that you are evaluating high-sensitivity troponin T.

We have, indeed, switched in our medical center to the ng/L dimensions for troponin values several years ago. However, much of the data was expressed as ng/ml when we have initially assessed the value of CRP/troponin in the early stages of data analysis. In addition, we felt that it would be conceptually better to express the combined biomarker CRP/troponin as an integer or >1 values and not as a fraction if we would have used ng/liter dimensions. For example, in a typical case of an AMI, a CRP value of 3 mg/liter with a troponin value of 100 ng/liter would yield a CRP/troponin value of 0.03, or 0.003 if measured troponin value is 1000 ng/liter. We felt that the CRP/troponin values of 30 and 3 obtained if ng/ml values are used, would be better mentally assimilated in routine practice. Following reviewer’s remark we added to paper this consideration that obtained CRP/troponin biomarker ratio should be divided by 1000 if used in the clinical field when troponin is measured in ng/liter.

To better quantify the added value of the troponin/CRP ratio, you may consider measuring the added value of the troponin/CRP ratio over troponin or CRP alone, or a combination of variables (for example, ischemic changes on ECG, history of coronary artery disease, typical chest pain, etc.) through discrimination analysis.

In response to the recommendation of the reviewer, we have performed a similar analysis ROC analysis to assess the accuracy of CRP or troponin to differentiate between myopericarditis and AMI. Using Troponin yielded an AUC of 0.41 (CI: 0.363-0.454). This represents a low differentiating power, in some way, a chance finding. CRP findings were different. For the whole study population the obtained AUC was 0.747, almost identical to performance of the CRP/troponin ratio. This makes sense since a patient that presents with considerable CRP elevation (e.g., 40 or 60 mg/liter) and a slightly elevated troponin concentration probably is afflicted by myopericarditis, and not AMI that presents with a normal or minimally elevated CRP. However, at the lower CRP levels the CRP/troponin performs better to differentiate myopericarditis from myocardial infarction.

When evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of the CRP/troponin ratio to identify myopericarditis against acute myocardial infarction it performed similarly to the diagnostic yield of high-level CRP. However, at low but higher than normal concentrations of CRP, the ratio was diagnostic and CRP levels were not. Therefore, the CRP/troponin ratio should be used across all CRP levels as advocated in the paper.

The diagnostic accuracy of the CRP/troponin ratio to diagnose myopericarditis against AMI yielded an AUC of 0.723 (CI: 0.6-0.844, p<0.001). The diagnostic accuracy of the CRP/troponin ratio to diagnose myopericarditis against NSTEMI yielded an AUC of 0.752 (CI: 0.62-0.884, p<0.001). Whereas, the diagnostic accuracy of the CRP to diagnose myopericarditis against NSTEMI yielded an AUC of 0. 56 (CI: 0.46-0.655, p=0.3) and was not statistically significant at all.

Please specify if the diagnosis of MI was based on European Society of Cardiology guidelines.

Yes, the diagnosis of MI was based on European Society of Cardiology guidelines. We assumed this fact as granted and, therefore, did not mention it explicitly. We thank the reviewer for his comment and added this premise to the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study aimed to assess the diagnostic role of CRP/troponin ratio to differentiate between myopericarditis and acute myocardial infarction. The Authors observed that high values of CRP/troponin ratio may support the diagnosis of myopericarditis in patients presenting with an acute cardiac syndrome.

Data are convincing and correctly analyzed and discussed, however since the echocardiographic pattern of global hypokinesia is a strong predictor of myopericarditis, it should be more useful to include in multivariate analysis also the presence of global hypokinesia. It is possible to hypothesize that CRP/Troponin ratio may be more useful to discriminate between ACS and myocarditis only in the subset of patients presenting with regional LV dysfunction and without pericarditis

Following analysis of the data, or the echocardiographic data in particular, we have observed that the classic pattern of diffuse hypokinesis is rare, especially if myopericarditis (and not myocarditis) patients are evaluated. In agreement with the reviewer we must admit that most myopericarditis patients present, with regard to their ECG pattern and echocardiographic findings and frequently also clinically, as NSTEMI and not as STEMI patients. Hence, as the reviewer stated, the diagnostic challenge is to differentiate myopericarditis patients with electrocardiographic STT changes and regional wall motion abnormalities resembling acute myocardial infarction from NSTEMI patients. Hence, we have reanalyzed the data after excluding the patients with no wall motion abnormalities or those with uniform wall motion abnormality. Seventy-seven patients (21.7%) of the myopericarditis group compared to 18% among the NSTEMI group and 8% among the STEMI group did not manifest regional wall motion abnormalities on echocardiography. Re-calculation of ROC after excluding this population yielded an AUC of 0.745, very similar to the result obtained for the entire study population regardless of their echocardiographic pattern. In other words, including the only patients, that resemble AMI patients, with regional motion abnormalities, did not significantly alter the accuracy of the CRP/troponin ratio for differentiating myopericarditis from AMI.

Decision Letter 1

Vincenzo Lionetti

25 Feb 2021

Differentiation between Myopericarditis and Acute Myocardial Infarction on Presentation in the Emergency Department Using the Admission C-reactive Protein to Troponin Ratio

PONE-D-20-40200R1

Dear Dr. Meisel,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vincenzo Lionetti, M.D., PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The Authors have modified their manuscript according to my suggestions. I have no further comments.

Reviewer #2: I do not any further comments, the quality of paper is improved after revision. Major issues are solved

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Luciano Agati

Acceptance letter

Vincenzo Lionetti

6 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-40200R1

Differentiation between Myopericarditis and Acute Myocardial Infarction on Presentation in the Emergency Department Using the Admission C-reactive Protein to Troponin Ratio

Dear Dr. Meisel:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Vincenzo Lionetti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES