Key result
Point-of-care cardiac troponin-T testing resulted in similar 3-month adverse outcomes compared with laboratory testing (13.1% vs 13.0%; difference 0.1%, 95% CI -6.2% to 6.4%; p=0.98).
Why the study?
Does point-of-care cardiac troponin-T testing reduce adverse clinical outcomes compared to laboratory-based testing in adults suspected of acute coronary syndrome?
Population
452 adults suspected of acute coronary syndrome (ACS)
Comparison
Point-of-care (POC) cardiac troponin-T testing vs Laboratory-based cardiac troponin-T testing
Design
RCT, randomised
Follow-up
3 months
Authors
Loading...
Supports point-of-care troponin-T testing as a safe alternative in suspected ACS; leaves open definitive noninferiority due to small sample and wide CI.
RCT (n=452)
randomised
Does point-of-care cardiac troponin-T testing reduce adverse clinical outcomes compared to laboratory-based testing in adults suspected of acute coronary syndrome?
Effect estimate: difference 0.1% (95% CI -6.2% to 6.4%)
Absolute Event Rate: 13.1% vs 13%
p-value: p=0.98
Point-of-care cardiac troponin-T testing resulted in similar 3-month adverse clinical outcomes compared to laboratory-based testing in patients with suspected ACS, though the small sample size limits definitive conclusions.
Asha et al. (2014) conducted an RCT in suspected acute coronary syndrome (n=452). Point-of-care (POC) cardiac troponin-T testing vs. Laboratory-based cardiac troponin-T testing was evaluated on composite of acute myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, cardiac arrest and mortality at 3 months (difference 0.1%, 95% CI -6.2% to 6.4%, p=0.98). Point-of-care cardiac troponin-T testing resulted in similar 3-month adverse outcomes compared with laboratory testing (13.1% vs 13.0%; difference 0.1%, 95% CI -6.2% to 6.4%; p=0.98).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: