Why the study?
Does high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T testing improve acute myocardial infarction diagnosis compared to standard troponin T testing in unselected emergency department patients?
Does high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T testing improve acute myocardial infarction diagnosis compared to standard troponin T testing in unselected emergency department patients?
In unselected emergency department patients, high-sensitivity troponin T does not significantly improve the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction compared to standard troponin T, although it detects more overall cardiac diseases.
No change to AMI diagnostic protocols indicated in unselected ED patients; leaves open hs-cTnT utility for detecting additional cardiac conditions.
BACKGROUND: We compared high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and standard cTnT for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) diagnosis in everyday clinical practice of an emergency department (ED). METHODS AND RESULTS: cTnT was measured in 2384 consecutive patients (60 ± 21 years, 52% female) on ED admission. Readmissions to the ED (n=720) and mortality (n=101) were followed for an average period of 239 ± 49 days. There were 53 AMIs (delay, 1 to 96 hours; median, 3 hours), 440 chest pain patients, 286 dyspnea patients, 785 acute or chronic cardiac diseases, and 540 neurological diseases, with the remaining having various internal diseases. The diagnostic performances of hs- and standard cTnT were comparable for AMI diagnosis (area under receiver operating characteristics curves [ROC AUC], 0.91 ± 0.02 versus 0.90 ± 0.03; P=0.31). Using the 99th-percentile cutoff, the sensitivities and specificities for AMI in the whole population were 91% and 74% for hs-cTnT and 89% and 80% for standard cTnT. hs-cTnT detected significantly more patients with cardiac diseases (ROC AUC, 0.77 ± 0.01 versus 0.67 ± 0.01; P<0.001). hs-cTnT and standard cTnT were significant predictors of ED readmissions but not of mortality, but both were not independent predictors of ED readmissions or the combined end point of readmission or mortality in binary logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In unselected ED patients the diagnostic performances of hs-cTnT and standard cTnT for AMI diagnosis did not differ significantly. hs-cTnT detected significantly more cardiac diseases. hs-cTnT and standard cTnT were not independent predictors of ED readmissions and mortality from all causes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hammerer‐Lercher et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: