Key result
Presentation ischaemia-modified albumin and troponin I yielded a sensitivity of 97.6% (95% CI 87.4-99.9) and specificity of 13.6%, which is insufficient for effective ED risk stratification.
Why the study?
Does presentation ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA) in addition to cardiac troponin I (TnI) accurately risk-stratify adult patients with possible ischaemic cardiac chest pain and a normal ECG in the emergency department?
Observational (n=399)
Single-blind
Yes
Does presentation ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA) in addition to cardiac troponin I (TnI) accurately risk-stratify adult patients with possible ischaemic cardiac chest pain and a normal ECG in the emergency department?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Presentation ischaemia-modified albumin does not have sufficient diagnostic accuracy to be used as an effective risk stratification tool for patients with chest pain in the emergency department.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of presentation ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA), in addition to cardiac troponin I (TnI), as a strategy to rapidly ascribe low risk to patients with chest pain attending an emergency department, and to determine whether IMA has the potential to reduce transit time in emergency departments. METHODS: A prospective observational study was carried out in two emergency departments (belonging to the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK; and the Frenchay Hospital, Bristol, UK) of similar size. Consecutive adult patients presenting with features of possible ischaemic cardiac chest pain and a normal electrocardiogram were eligible. The index test (measurement of IMA and TnI at presentation) and reference standard (delayed TnI measurement, taken at least 8 h after pain onset) were applied to all recruited patients. All clinicians were blinded to the results of the index test. Assays were carried out in a single laboratory using standard techniques. RESULTS: 399 patients were recruited; 277 patients had a result for both the index test and reference standard. The sensitivity was 97.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 87.4 to 99.9), negative predictive value 97% (95% CI 84.2 to 99.9) and specificity 13.6% (95% CI 9.5 to 18.7). Sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in three alternative scenarios. Receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated that a different "cut-off" value for IMA would not improve the properties of the test. The median potential time saved (n = 268) was 6 h and 10 min. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of presentation IMA in this study does not support its use as an effective risk stratification tool for patients with chest pain in the emergency department. The sensitivity is insufficiently high, with a small number of false negatives undermining the safety of the test. Frequent false positives produce a low specificity that limits the practical value of the test.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luke Keating (2006) conducted an observational in Possible ischaemic cardiac chest pain (n=399). Presentation ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA) and cardiac troponin I (TnI) vs. Delayed TnI measurement (≥8 h after pain onset) was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value) (Sensitivity 97.6%, 95% CI 87.4-99.9). Presentation ischaemia-modified albumin and troponin I yielded a sensitivity of 97.6% (95% CI 87.4-99.9) and specificity of 13.6%, which is insufficient for effective ED risk stratification.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: