Search

Background: Until now, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays were mainly developed for large central laboratory platforms., Objectives: This study aimed to assess the clinical performance of a point-of-care (POC)-hs-cTnI assay in patients with suspected myocardial infarction (MI)., Methods: This study enrolled patients presenting to the emergency department with symptoms suggestive of MI. Two cardiologists centrally adjudicated the final diagnosis using all clinical data including cardiac imaging. The primary objective was to directly compare diagnostic accuracy of POC-hs-cTnI-TriageTrue versus best-validated central laboratory assays. Secondary objectives included the derivation and validation of a POC-hs-cTnI-TriageTrue-specific 0/1-h algorithm., Results: MI was the adjudicated final diagnosis in 178 of 1,261 patients (14%). The area under the curve (AUC) for POC-hs-cTnI-TriageTrue at presentation was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93 to 0.96) and was at least comparable to hs-cTnT-Elecsys (AUC: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.93 to 0.96; p = 0.213) and hs-cTnI-Architect (AUC: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.90 to 0.93; p < 0.001). A single cutoff concentration <3 ng/l at presentation identified 45% of patients at low risk with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% (95% CI: 99.4% to 100%). A single cutoff concentration >60 ng/l identified patients at high risk with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 76.8% (95% CI: 68.9% to 83.6%). The 0/1-h algorithm ruled out 55% of patients (NPV: 100%; 95% CI: 98.8% to 100%), and ruled in 18% of patients (PPV: 76.8%; 95% CI: 67.2% to 84.7%). Ruled-out patients had cumulative event rates of 0% at 30 days and 1.6% at 2 years. This study confirmed these findings in a secondary analysis including hs-cTnI-Architect for central adjudication., Conclusions: The POC-hs-cTnI-TriageTrue assay provides high diagnostic accuracy in patients with suspected MI with a clinical performance that is at least comparable to that of best-validated central laboratory assays. (Advantageous Predictors of Acute Coronary Syndromes Evaluation Study [APACE]; NCT00470587)., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The prevalence of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients presenting with syncope to the emergency department (ED) is largely unknown. This information, however, is necessary to balance the potential medical benefit or harm of systematic PE screening in patients presenting with syncope to the ED., Objectives: This study sought to determine the prevalence of PE in patients with syncope., Methods: Unselected patients presenting with syncope to the ED were prospectively enrolled in a diagnostic multicenter study. Pre-test clinical probability for PE was assessed using the 2-level Wells score and the results of D-dimer testing using age-adapted cutoffs. Presence of PE was evaluated by imaging modalities, when ordered as part of the clinical assessment by the treating ED physician or by long-term follow-up data., Results: Long-term follow-up was complete in 1,380 patients (99%) at 360 days and 1,156 patients (83%) at 720 days. Among 1,397 patients presenting with syncope to the ED, PE was detected at presentation in 19 patients (1.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87% to 2.11%). The incidence of new PEs or cardiovascular death during 2-year follow-up was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.5% to 1.5%). In the subgroup of patients hospitalized (47%), PE was detected at presentation in 15 patients (2.3%; 95% CI: 1.4% to 3.7%). The incidence of new PEs or cardiovascular death during 2-year follow-up was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.4% to 2.0%)., Conclusions: PE seems to be a rather uncommon cause of syncope among patients presenting to the ED. Therefore, systematic PE-screening in all patients with syncope does not seem warranted. (BAsel Syncope EvaLuation Study [BASEL IX]; NCT01548352)., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Uncertainties regarding the most appropriate definition and treatment of type 2 myocardial infarction (T2MI) due to supply-demand mismatch have contributed to inconsistent adoption in clinical practice., Objectives: This study sought a better understanding of the effect of the definition of T2MI on its incidence, treatment, and event-related mortality, thereby addressing an important unmet clinical need., Methods: The final diagnosis was adjudicated in patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of myocardial infarction by 2 independent cardiologists by 2 methods: 1 method required the presence of coronary artery disease, a common interpretation of the 2007 universal definition (T2MI 2007 ); and 1 method did not require coronary artery disease, the 2012 universal definition (T2MI 2012 )., Results: Overall, 4,015 consecutive patients were adjudicated. The incidence of T2MI based on the T2MI 2007 definition was 2.8% (n = 112). The application of the more liberal T2MI 2012 definition resulted in an increase of T2MI incidence of 6% (n = 240), a relative increase of 114% (128 reclassified patients, defined as T2MI 2012reclassified ). Among T2MI 2007 , 6.3% of patients received coronary revascularization, 22% dual-antiplatelet therapy, and 71% high-dose statin therapy versus 0.8%, 1.6%, and 31% among T2MI 2012reclassified patients, respectively (all p < 0.01). Cardiovascular mortality at 90 days was 0% among T2MI 2012reclassified , which was similar to patients with noncardiac causes of chest discomfort (0.2%), and lower than T2MI 2007 (3.6%) and type 1 myocardial infarction (T1MI) (4.8%) (T2MI 2012reclassified vs. T2MI 2007 and T1MI: p = 0.03 and 0.01, respectively)., Conclusions: T2MI 2012reclassified has a substantially lower event-related mortality rate compared with T2MI 2007 and T1MI. (Advantageous Predictors of Acute Coronary Syndromes Evaluation [APACE] Study; NCT00470587)., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)