Key result
Assay-agnostic 3C algorithm shows comparable MI sensitivity and specificity to ESC 0/1h and 0/2h algorithms.
Why the study?
Diagnostic algorithms for suspected MI are limited by reliance on assay-specific hs-cTn cut-offs, prompting evaluation of the assay-independent common change criteria (3C) algorithm against established ESC algorithms.
Does the 3C algorithm for hs-cTn provide comparable diagnostic performance to established ESC algorithms for rule-in and rule-out of MI in patients presenting to the emergency department?
Population
5011 patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected MI across two cohorts
Comparison
Assay-independent 3C algorithm vs established ESC algorithms
Design
Combined analysis of two prospective cohort studies
Authors
Loading...
Supports assay-agnostic 3C use for suspected MI; extends ESC data in cohorts but leaves adoption open.
Cohort (n=5,011)
Yes
Does the 3C algorithm for hs-cTn provide comparable diagnostic performance to established ESC algorithms for rule-in and rule-out of MI in patients presenting to the emergency department?
The assay-agnostic 3C algorithm performs similarly to established ESC 0/1h and 0/2h algorithms for risk stratifying patients with suspected MI, offering a universal approach across different hs-cTn assays.
Thiessen et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Suspected myocardial infarction (n=5,011). 3C algorithm for hs-cTn vs. ESC 0/1h and 0/2h algorithms was evaluated on Diagnostic performance for MI (sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios). In 5,011 patients (16.1% MI prevalence), the assay-agnostic 3C algorithm performed similarly to established ESC 0/1h and 0/2h algorithms for risk stratifying patients for possible MI.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: