Key result
ESC 0/3h-algorithm with hs-cTnI-VITROS safely rules out NSTEMI in ~31% of patients.
Why the study?
Physicians faced uncertainty regarding the optimal clinical application of the novel hs-cTnI-VITROS assay within the widely implemented upper reference limit-based ESC 0/3h-algorithm.
Does the URL-based ESC 0/3h-algorithm using the novel hs-cTnI-VITROS assay accurately rule out and rule in NSTEMI in adult patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected acute myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=1,225)
Blinded adjudication (cardiologists blinded to hs-cTnI-VITROS concentrations)
Yes
Does the URL-based ESC 0/3h-algorithm using the novel hs-cTnI-VITROS assay accurately rule out and rule in NSTEMI in adult patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected acute myocardial infarction?
The novel hs-cTnI-VITROS assay within the ESC 0/3h-algorithm provides high diagnostic accuracy and safety for ruling out NSTEMI, with improved rule-out efficacy (43.9%) when combined with the HEART score instead of the GRACE score.
Supports NSTEMI rule-out with hs-cTnI-VITROS in ESC 0/3h-algorithm; extends prior validations to this assay in a multicenter cohort.
Background There is uncertainty among physicians regarding the optimal clinical application of the novel high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI)-VITROS assay within the widely implemented upper reference limit (URL)-based ESC 0/3h-algorithm. Methods This prospective, international, multicenter study aimed to validate and compare different modifications of the URL-based ESC 0/3h-algorithm among adult patients presenting with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to the emergency department. Final diagnoses of AMI were centrally adjudicated by two independent cardiologists, blinded to hs-cTnI-VITROS concentrations. Discrimination was compared to the best validated hs-cTnT/I-assays. Clinical follow-up for cardiovascular death and AMI was conducted until five years. Results Among 1225 eligible patients (median age 63 years (IQR 52-75), 31.9% women), 18.9% were adjudicated as NSTEMI. Diagnostic discrimination of hs-cTnI-VITROS at 0h was very high (AUC 0.949, 95% CI 0.941–0.958), and comparable to hs-cTnI-Architect and hs-cTnT-Elecsys. Using the ESC 0/3h algorithm, 30.9% of patients were classified as rule-out (sensitivity 99.1%, NPV 99.5%) and 19.0% as rule-in (specificity 96.0%, PPV 82.8%). Substituting the HEART score for the GRACE score increased rule-out efficacy to 43.9%, while maintaining very high safety (sensitivity 99.6%; NPV 99.8%). Findings were consistent across predefined subgroups, in sensitivity analyses restricted to type 1 NSTEMI, using the 2h study blood sample (n=2249), and for the composite of cardiovascular death or AMI during five-year follow-up Conclusions The ESC 0/3h-algorithm demonstrated excellent performance for rule-out of NSTEMI with greater efficacy when combined with the HEART- instead of the GRACE score.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Durak et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (n=1,225). ESC 0/3h-algorithm using the hs-cTnI-VITROS assay (with GRACE or HEART score) vs. hs-cTnI-Architect and hs-cTnT-Elecsys assays was evaluated on Diagnostic discrimination and rule-out performance for NSTEMI (AUC 0.949, 95% CI 0.941-0.958). The ESC 0/3h-algorithm with hs-cTnI-VITROS safely ruled out NSTEMI in 30.9% of patients (sensitivity 99.1%, NPV 99.5%), increasing to 43.9% when combined with the HEART score (sensitivity 99.6%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: