Why the study?
Does point-of-care testing for cardiac troponins provide sufficient analytical precision to support rapid diagnostic algorithms in patients with suspected ACS?
Does point-of-care testing for cardiac troponins provide sufficient analytical precision to support rapid diagnostic algorithms in patients with suspected ACS?
Current point-of-care troponin testing systems lack the analytical precision required to safely implement modern 1-hour or 3-hour high-sensitivity troponin diagnostic algorithms for suspected ACS.
Current POCT troponin systems should not support 0/1h or 0/3h algorithms for suspected ACS; leaves open whether improved devices can meet required analytical standards.
The measurement of the cardiac troponins (cTn), cardiac troponin T (cTnT) and cardiac troponin I (cTnI) are integral to the management of patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Patients without clear electrocardiographic evidence of myocardial infarction require measurement of cTnT or cTnI. It therefore follows that a rapid turnaround time (TAT) combined with the immediacy of results return which is achieved by point-of-care testing (POCT) offers a substantial clinical benefit. Rapid results return plus immediate decision-making should translate into improved patient flow and improved therapeutic decision-making. The development of high sensitivity troponin assays offer significant clinical advantages. Diagnostic algorithms have been devised utilising very low cut-offs at first presentation and rapid sequential measurements based on admission and 3 h sampling, most recently with admission and 1 h sampling. Such troponin algorithms would be even more ideally suited to point-of-care testing as the TAT achieved by the diagnostic laboratory of typically 60 min corresponds to the sampling interval required by the clinician using the algorithm. However, the limits of detection and analytical imprecision required to utilise these algorithms is not yet met by any easy-to-use POCT systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paul Collinson (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: