Key result
Quidel TriageTrue POC hs-cTn I showed equivalent safety to central laboratory troponins for rule-out of index MI and 30-day MACE, with a faster turnaround time (29 vs 79 minutes).
Why the study?
Large-scale prospective studies assessing the clinical performance of whole blood point-of-care high-sensitivity cardiac troponin in the emergency department were lacking.
Does point of care whole blood high sensitive cardiac troponin I assay perform equivalently to central laboratory testing for ruling out/in suspected ACS in emergency department patients?
Cohort (n=3,163)
Blinded event adjudication
Yes
Does point of care whole blood high sensitive cardiac troponin I assay perform equivalently to central laboratory testing for ruling out/in suspected ACS in emergency department patients?
Point-of-care high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I testing provides equivalent diagnostic accuracy to central laboratory testing for suspected ACS with significantly faster turnaround times.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports faster ED rule-out in suspected ACS; extends lab hs-cTn evidence to POC but leaves open need for RCTs.
Introduction A point of care (POC) high sensitive cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) can improve early discharge and rule-in for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) but large-scale prospective studies assessing clinical performance of whole blood POC troponin in the emergency department (ED) are lacking. Methods This was a preplanned nested cohort study of the MACROS trial, a randomised controlled study of the ESC 0-1 versus 0-3 hour pathway for suspected ACS. As well as central laboratory hs-cTn sampling all patients had real time whole blood (WB) sampling for Quidel TriageTrue POC hs-cTn I by non-laboratory operators at presentation and at 1 or 3 hours according to randomisation. The hs-cTn T (Roche, elecsys) biomarker was used for all clinical decisions. Subsequent event adjudication was undertaken in a blinded fashion using Abbott allinity hs-cTn I. The performance of the POC hs-cTn I assays was assessed using prespecified, and previously published criteria for single sample rule-out (SSRO) and the ESC 0-1 hour and 0-3 hour pathway. The clinical endpoints were by adjudicated type 1 or 2 MI (4th universal definition) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as adjudicated type 1 MI, cardiovascular death and urgent coronary revascularisation at 30 days. Results 3306 presentations in 3163 patients recruited from 2 large EDs in North England form the study population. The mean age was 59 years, 1755 (53.4%) were male, 206 (6.2%) an index type 1 MI and 237 (7.2%) had a MACE within 30 days. The median time, from blood sampling to result, for Quidel TriageTrue POC hs-cTn I and central laboratory hs-cTnT was 29 and 79 minutes respectively. Safety for SSRO, both for index MI and MACE at 30 days, for TriageTrue POC hs-cTn I (table) was equivalent to central laboratory troponins but the clinical efficiency (% cohort rule-out) was greater. Performance of triage true POC hs-cTn I in both the ESC 0-1 and 0-3 hour pathway was impressive, demonstrating rule-out of >60% and rule-in of approximately 10% with safety parameters similar to central laboratory hs-cTnT. The figure illustrates classification and performance metrics for MACE at 30 days in the 0-1 hour pathway Conclusion This is the first large prospective multicentre study that comprehensively determines clinical performance of POC hs-cTn I assay, when analysed in real time in ED. Triagetrue POC hs-cTn I has equivalent clinical performance to central laboratory hs-cTns but with a much faster turn-around time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khand et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n=3,163). Quidel TriageTrue POC hs-cTn I vs. Central laboratory hs-cTnT was evaluated on Adjudicated type 1 or 2 MI and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days. Quidel TriageTrue POC hs-cTn I showed equivalent safety to central laboratory troponins for rule-out of index MI and 30-day MACE, with a faster turnaround time (29 vs 79 minutes).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: