1. One size does not fit all: performance of the 0/1-h and 0/2-h cardiac troponin t algorithms in a contemporary cohort of chest pain patients
- Author
-
L Obling, A Alquezar, A Garcia-Osuna, M Vila-Perales, L Rodriguez-Sotelo, W Bragagnini, P Pena-Ortega, C J Romero, M Padrosa, S Alvarez-Nuno, C Moreno, Y Ibanez, A Sionis, J Ordonez-Llanos, and A Duran-Cambra
- Subjects
General Medicine ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine - Abstract
Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background A rapid and efficient disposition of patients with chest pain and a suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) diagnosis represents a clinical challenge in the emergency department (ED). The latest European clinical guidelines recommend the use of diagnostic algorithms at 0/1 and 0/2 hours, but their performance in different patient populations needs to be further investigated. Purpose To evaluate the performance of the 0/1-h and 0/2-h high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) algorithms in a cohort of patients admitted to an ED in an academic center in Spain. Methods We performed a single-center, prospective study in patients admitted with suspected non-ST elevation ACS (NSTEACS). Hs-cTnT (Roche Diagnostics) was measured at admission (t0) and one (t1) and two hours (t2) later; hs-cTnT differences between times were named Delta 0/1h (D-0/1) or Delta 0/2h (D-0/2). Patients were sub-grouped according to the following: "Rule out" when the time of pain-debut was >3 hours and t0 hs-cTnT Results 286 patients were enrolled in the study. Median age was 70 (higher than in previous validation studies of rapid rule-in and rule-out algorithms; see Table 1 for baseline characteristics). The overall prevalence of NSTEACS was 17% (n = 49/286). A hs-cTnT52 ng/L existed in 39 patients, but only 69% were NSTEACS. The 0/1-h algorithm demonstrated an NPV of 97.3% and a PPV of 72% while the 0/2-h algorithm achieved an NPV of 100% and a PPV of 72.9% for the "Rule-out" and "Rule-in" group, respectively (Figure 1). Both algorithms allocated same percentage of patients (~30%) in the "Observe" group. Overall, the algorithms performed well, but in the 0/1-h algorithm, four patients with final diagnosis of NSTEACS were wrongly allocated to the "Rule-out" group. This did not occur in the 0/2-h algorithm where the same patients were allocated to the "Observe" group. Conclusion In our prospective cohort, the performance of the two recommended rapid rule-in and rule-out algorithms were good, but the 0/2-h algorithm achieved a better NPV and allowed for a more precise disposition of patients with respect to the 0/1-h algorithm.
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF