Key result
T-MACS rules out AMI with ~99% sensitivity, outperforming HEART and TIMI scores.
Why the study?
The diagnostic accuracy of four decision aids for early diagnosis of ACS in the emergency department had not been directly compared in a prospective multicenter study.
How do the T-MACS, HEART, TIMI, and EDACS decision aids compare in diagnostic accuracy for the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in emergency department patients with suspected ACS?
Population
999 patients with suspected ACS presenting within 12 hours to 14 EDs in England
Comparison
T-MACS vs HEART vs TIMI vs EDACS decision aids vs hs-cTnI alone
Design
Prospective cohort study with data collection blinded to patient outcome
Follow-up
30 days
Authors
Loading...
May support T-MACS or EDACS for AMI rule-out in ED; hypothesis-generating, needs prospective validation.
Cohort (n=999)
Blinded to patient outcome
Yes
How do the T-MACS, HEART, TIMI, and EDACS decision aids compare in diagnostic accuracy for the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in emergency department patients with suspected ACS?
The T-MACS and EDACS decision aids demonstrated high sensitivity and efficiency for ruling out acute myocardial infarction in the emergency department, outperforming the HEART and TIMI scores.
Body et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (n=999). T-MACS decision aid vs. HEART, TIMI, EDACS, and hs-cTnI alone was evaluated on Sensitivity for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (95% CI 95.7-100.0). The T-MACS decision aid ruled out acute myocardial infarction in 46.5% of patients with 99.2% sensitivity (95% CI 95.7-100.0%), demonstrating higher diagnostic accuracy than HEART and TIMI scores.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: