Background The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1 h high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) algorithm is endorsed for rapid triage of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, its real-world performance, particularly in Asian populations and among patients with comorbidities, remains uncertain. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study of consecutive patients presenting with suspected ACS to the emergency department of a tertiary hospital in China between May 2023 and May 2025. Patients were classified by the ESC 2020 0/1 h hs-cTnT algorithm into rule-out, observe, or rule-in groups. The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of the rule-in arm, assessed by specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) for myocardial infarction (MI) during admission. Disposition decisions and length of stay (LOS) were also evaluated. A sensitivity analysis compared the ESC 2015 and 2020 thresholds. Results A total of 508 patients were included (median age 62 years, 39% women). According to the 2020 ESC algorithm, 203 patients (40%) were classified as rule-out, 254 (50%) as observe, and 51 (10%) as rule-in. In the rule-in group, 42 patients had a final diagnosis of MI, yielding a PPV of 82%. None of the rule-out patients were diagnosed with MI, although 20% were admitted despite meeting rule-out criteria. The observe group was clinically heterogeneous, with 17% diagnosed with MI and the longest ED LOS (median 7.4 h). Patients with known coronary artery disease were more often classified as rule-in or observe, whereas younger patients were predominantly rule-out. In the sensitivity analysis, applying 2015 thresholds reduced the rule-in proportion and increased the observe group, without improving discrimination for MI. Conclusions The ESC 0/1 h hs-cTnT algorithm demonstrated good diagnostic concordance in the rule-in group and high safety in the rule-out group, but nearly half of the patients remained in the observe category, limiting operational efficiency. The 2020 threshold adjustments reclassified more patients as rule-in or rule-out but did not enhance diagnostic yield. These findings suggest that while the algorithm can support early decision-making, its thresholds may require recalibration to local populations and clinical practice settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: