John W Pickering1, Jaimi H Greenslade2, Louise Cullen2, Dylan Flaws2, William Parsonage3, Peter George4, Andrew Worster5, Peter A Kavsak5, Martin P Than6. 1. Emergency Department, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, and The University of Queensland and School of Public Health, Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, Brisbane, Australia. 3. Department of Cardiology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 4. Canterbury Health Laboratories, Christchurch, New Zealand. 5. McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 6. Emergency Department, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: International guidelines to rule-in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients presenting with chest pain to the emergency department (ED) recommend an algorithm using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) sampling on presentation and 3 h following presentation. We tested the diagnostic accuracy of this algorithm by pooling data from five distinct cohorts from three countries of prospectively recruited patients with independently adjudicated outcomes. METHOD: We measured high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) on presentation (0 h) and 3 h post-presentation samples in adult patients attending an ED with possible AMI to validate the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Acute Cardiac Care rule-in algorithm (ESC-rule-in). Specifically, (i) in patients with a 0 h hs-cTn concentration ≤99th percentile and a 3 h hs-cTn >99th percentile, positive patients are those with an absolute change in troponin ≥50% of the 99th percentile, and (ii) in patients with a 0 and 3 h hs-cTn >99th percentile, positive patients are those with a relative change in troponin of ≥20%. We concurrently assessed the efficacy of the 0 and 3 h hs-cTn <99th percentile to rule-out AMI. RESULTS: 1061 patients with hs-cTnI and 985 with hs-cTnT were included. The ESC-rule-in positive predictive value (PPV) was 83.5% (95% CI 74.9% to 90.1%) for hs-cTnI and 72.0% (95% CI 62.1% to 80.5%) for hs-cTnT. Forty-six AMIs (34.9%) were not ruled in using hs-cTnI and 62 (46.2%) using hs-cTnT. The sensitivity of the 99th percentile to rule-out AMI was 93.2% (95% CI 87.5% to 96.8%) for hs-cTnI and 94.8% (95% CI 89.5% to 97.9%) for hs-cTnT. CONCLUSIONS: The ESC-rule-in algorithm has good PPV with hs-cTnI and reasonable with hs-cTnT and can rule-in over 50% of AMIs. However, the sensitivity of the 99th percentile to rule-out AMI is too low for clinical use. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
OBJECTIVE: International guidelines to rule-in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients presenting with chest pain to the emergency department (ED) recommend an algorithm using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) sampling on presentation and 3 h following presentation. We tested the diagnostic accuracy of this algorithm by pooling data from five distinct cohorts from three countries of prospectively recruited patients with independently adjudicated outcomes. METHOD: We measured high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) on presentation (0 h) and 3 h post-presentation samples in adult patients attending an ED with possible AMI to validate the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Acute Cardiac Care rule-in algorithm (ESC-rule-in). Specifically, (i) in patients with a 0 h hs-cTn concentration ≤99th percentile and a 3 h hs-cTn >99th percentile, positive patients are those with an absolute change in troponin ≥50% of the 99th percentile, and (ii) in patients with a 0 and 3 h hs-cTn >99th percentile, positive patients are those with a relative change in troponin of ≥20%. We concurrently assessed the efficacy of the 0 and 3 h hs-cTn <99th percentile to rule-out AMI. RESULTS: 1061 patients with hs-cTnI and 985 with hs-cTnT were included. The ESC-rule-in positive predictive value (PPV) was 83.5% (95% CI 74.9% to 90.1%) for hs-cTnI and 72.0% (95% CI 62.1% to 80.5%) for hs-cTnT. Forty-six AMIs (34.9%) were not ruled in using hs-cTnI and 62 (46.2%) using hs-cTnT. The sensitivity of the 99th percentile to rule-out AMI was 93.2% (95% CI 87.5% to 96.8%) for hs-cTnI and 94.8% (95% CI 89.5% to 97.9%) for hs-cTnT. CONCLUSIONS: The ESC-rule-in algorithm has good PPV with hs-cTnI and reasonable with hs-cTnT and can rule-in over 50% of AMIs. However, the sensitivity of the 99th percentile to rule-out AMI is too low for clinical use. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: Peter A Kavsak; Johannes T Neumann; Louise Cullen; Martin Than; Colleen Shortt; Jaimi H Greenslade; John W Pickering; Francisco Ojeda; Jinhui Ma; Natasha Clayton; Jonathan Sherbino; Stephen A Hill; Matthew McQueen; Dirk Westermann; Nils A Sörensen; William A Parsonage; Lauren Griffith; Shamir R Mehta; P J Devereaux; Mark Richards; Richard Troughton; Chris Pemberton; Sally Aldous; Stefan Blankenberg; Andrew Worster Journal: CMAJ Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Kristen M Tecson; William Arnold; Tyler Barrett; Robert Birkhahn; Lori B Daniels; Christopher DeFilippi; Gary Headden; W Frank Peacock; Michael Reed; Adam J Singer; Jeffrey M Schussler; Stephen Smith; Martin P Than; Peter A McCullough Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Date: 2017-01
Authors: Andrew R Chapman; Kuan Ken Lee; David A McAllister; Louise Cullen; Jaimi H Greenslade; William Parsonage; Andrew Worster; Peter A Kavsak; Stefan Blankenberg; Johannes Neumann; Nils A Sörensen; Dirk Westermann; Madelon M Buijs; Gerard J E Verdel; John W Pickering; Martin P Than; Raphael Twerenbold; Patrick Badertscher; Zaid Sabti; Christian Mueller; Atul Anand; Philip Adamson; Fiona E Strachan; Amy Ferry; Dennis Sandeman; Alasdair Gray; Richard Body; Brian Keevil; Edward Carlton; Kim Greaves; Frederick K Korley; Thomas S Metkus; Yader Sandoval; Fred S Apple; David E Newby; Anoop S V Shah; Nicholas L Mills Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Atul Anand; Kuan Ken Lee; Andrew R Chapman; Amy V Ferry; Phil D Adamson; Fiona E Strachan; Colin Berry; Iain Findlay; Anne Cruikshank; Alan Reid; Paul O Collinson; Fred S Apple; David A McAllister; Donogh Maguire; Keith A A Fox; David E Newby; Chris Tuck; Ronald Harkess; Catriona Keerie; Christopher J Weir; Richard A Parker; Alasdair Gray; Anoop S V Shah; Nicholas L Mills Journal: Circulation Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 39.918
Authors: Andrew R Chapman; Atul Anand; Jasper Boeddinghaus; Amy V Ferry; Dennis Sandeman; Philip D Adamson; Jack Andrews; Stephanie Tan; Sheun F Cheng; Michelle D'Souza; Kate Orme; Fiona E Strachan; Thomas Nestelberger; Raphael Twerenbold; Patrick Badertscher; Tobias Reichlin; Alasdair Gray; Anoop S V Shah; Christian Mueller; David E Newby; Nicholas L Mills Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Johannes Tobias Neumann; Nils Arne Sörensen; Francisco Ojeda; Thomas Renné; Renate B Schnabel; Tanja Zeller; Mahir Karakas; Stefan Blankenberg; Dirk Westermann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joanna M Young; John W Pickering; Peter M George; Sally J Aldous; John Wallace; Chris M Frampton; Richard W Troughton; Mark A Richards; Jaimi H Greenslade; Louise Cullen; Martin P Than Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2016-08-31