Search

The TRAPID-AMI (High Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T assay for rapid Rule-out of Acute Myocardial Infarction) study evaluated a rapid "rule-out" acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We evaluated what symptoms were associated with AMI as part of a substudy of TRAPID-AMI. There were 1282 patients evaluated from 12 centers in Europe, the United States of America, and Australia from 2011 to 2013. Multiple symptom variables were prospectively obtained and evaluated for association with the final diagnosis of AMI. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done, and odds ratios (OR) were calculated. There were 213/1282 (17%) AMIs. Four independent predictors for the diagnosis of AMI were identified: radiation to right arm or shoulder [OR = 3.0; confidence interval (CI): 1.8-5.0], chest pressure (OR = 2.5; CI: 1.3-4.6), worsened by physical activity (OR = 1.7; CI: 1.2-2.5), and radiation to left arm or shoulder (OR = 1.7; CI: 1.1-2.4). In the entire group, 131 (10%) had radiation to right arm or shoulder, 897 (70%) had chest pressure, 385 (30%) worsened with physical activity, and 448 (35%) had radiation to left arm or shoulder. Duration of symptoms was not predictive of AMI. There were no symptoms predictive of non-AMI. Relationship between AMI size and symptoms was also studied. For 213 AMI patients, cardiac troponins I values were divided into 4 quartiles. Symptoms including pulling chest pain, supramammillary right location, and right arm/shoulder radiation were significantly more likely to occur in patients with larger AMIs. In a large multicenter trial, only 4 symptoms were associated with the diagnosis of AMI, and no symptoms that were associated with a non-AMI diagnosis.

Recent single-center and retrospective studies suggest that acute myocardial infarction (AMI) could be immediately excluded without serial sampling in patients with initial high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) levels below the limit of detection (LoD) of the assay and no electrocardiogram (ECG) ischemia.We aimed to determine the external validity of those findings in a multicenter study at 12 sites in nine countries.TRAPID-AMI was a prospective diagnostic cohort study including patients with suspected cardiac chest pain within 6 hours of peak symptoms. Blood drawn on arrival was centrally tested for hs-cTnT (Roche; 99th percentile = 14 ng/L, LoD = 5 ng/L). All patients underwent serial troponin sampling over 4-14 hours. The primary outcome, prevalent AMI, was adjudicated based on sensitive troponin I (Siemens Ultra) levels. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including AMI, death, or rehospitalization for acute coronary syndrome with coronary revascularization were determined after 30 days.We included 1,282 patients, of whom 213 (16.6%) had AMI and 231 (18.0%) developed MACE. Of 560 (43.7%) patients with initial hs-cTnT levels below the LoD, four (0.7%) had AMI. In total, 471 (36.7%) patients had both initial hs-cTnT levels below the LoD and no ECG ischemia. These patients had a 0.4% (n = 2) probability of AMI, giving 99.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 96.7% to 99.9%) sensitivity and 99.6% (95% CI = 98.5% to 100.0%) negative predictive value. The incidence of MACE in this group was 1.3% (95% CI = 0.5% to 2.8%).In the absence of ECG ischemia, the detection of very low concentrations of hs-cTnT at admission seems to allow rapid, safe exclusion of AMI in one-third of patients without serial sampling. This could be used alongside careful clinical assessment to help reduce unnecessary hospital admissions.

Background: The mainstay of patient-oriented laboratory testing in emergency settings entails selecting a number and the type of tests according to valid criteria of appropriateness. Since the pattern of urgent tests requesting is variable across different institutions, we designed a joined survey between the Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC) and the Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Molecular Biology (SIBioC) for reaching tentative consensus about the most informative diagnostic tests in emergency settings. Methods: A survey, containing the most commonly ordered urgent laboratory tests and the relative clinical indications, was disseminated to eight relevant members of AcEMC and eight relevant members of SIBioC. All contributors were asked to provide numerical scores for the different laboratory parameters, where 1 indicated “strongly recommended”, 2 “recommended in specific circumstances”, and 3 “strongly discouraged”. The mean results of the survey were presented as the mean of responders’ values, and the parameters were finally classified as “strongly recommended” (mean value, 1.00–1.49), “weakly recommended” (mean value, 1.50–1.99), “discouraged” (mean value, 2.00–2.49) and “strongly discouraged” (mean value, 2.50–3.00). Results: The results of the survey allowed defining a hierarchy of priority, wherein 24 tests were “strongly recommended”. The use of five common tests was instead “strongly discouraged”. For 16 additional parameters in the list, the consensus ranged between “weakly recommended” and “discouraged”. Conclusions: We hope that results presented in this joint AcEMC-SIBioC consensus document may help harmonizing panel of tests and requesting patterns in emergency setting, at least at a national level.