Why the study?
The study aimed to derive and externally validate a 0/2-h algorithm using the hs-cTnI-Access assay for rapid triage of suspected AMI.
Does a 0/2-h algorithm using the hs-cTnI-Access assay accurately rule-out and rule-in acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting to the emergency department?
Does a 0/2-h algorithm using the hs-cTnI-Access assay accurately rule-out and rule-in acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting to the emergency department?
A 0/2-hour algorithm using the hs-cTnI-Access assay safely and effectively triages patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction for rapid rule-out or rule-in.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support rapid AMI rule-out in ED; leaves open prospective validation before routine use.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to derive and externally validate a 0/2-h algorithm using the high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI)-Access assay. METHODS: We enrolled patients presenting to the emergency department with symptoms suggestive of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in 2 prospective diagnostic studies using central adjudication. Two independent cardiologists adjudicated the final diagnosis, including all available medical information including cardiac imaging. hs-cTnI-Access concentrations were measured at presentation and after 2 h in a blinded fashion. RESULTS: AMI was the adjudicated final diagnosis in 164 of 1131 (14.5%) patients in the derivation cohort. Rule-out by the hs-cTnI-Access 0/2-h algorithm was defined as 0-h hs-cTnI-Access concentration <4 ng/L in patients with an onset of chest pain >3 h (direct rule-out) or a 0-h hs-cTnI-Access concentration <5 ng/L and an absolute change within 2 h <5 ng/L in all other patients. Derived thresholds for rule-in were a 0-h hs-cTnI-Access concentration ≥50 ng/L (direct rule-in) or an absolute change within 2 h ≥20 ng/L. In the derivation cohort, these cutoffs ruled out 55% of patients with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.8% (95% CI, 99.3-100) and sensitivity of 99.4% (95% CI, 96.5-99.9), and ruled in 30% of patients with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 73% (95% CI, 66.1-79). In the validation cohort, AMI was the adjudicated final diagnosis in 88 of 1280 (6.9%) patients. These cutoffs ruled out 77.9% of patients with an NPV of 99.8% (95% CI, 99.3-100) and sensitivity of 97.7% (95% CI, 92.0-99.7), and ruled in 5.8% of patients with a PPV of 77% (95% CI, 65.8-86) in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and efficacy of the l hs-cTnI-Access 0/2-h algorithm for triage toward rule-out or rule-in of AMI are very high. TRIAL REGISTRATION: APACE, NCT00470587; ADAPT, ACTRN1261100106994; IMPACT, ACTRN12611000206921.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nestelberger et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: