Back to Search
Start Over
Appropriateness of Cardiac Troponin Testing: Insights from the Use of TROPonin In Acute coronary syndromes (UTROPIA) Study.
- Source :
-
The American journal of medicine [Am J Med] 2019 Jul; Vol. 132 (7), pp. 869-874. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Mar 05. - Publication Year :
- 2019
-
Abstract
- Objective: Our objective was to examine the appropriateness of cardiac troponin (cTn) testing among patients with cTn increases.<br />Methods: This is a planned secondary analysis of the Use of TROPonin In Acute coronary syndromes (UTROPIA, NCT02060760) observational cohort study. Appropriateness of cTn testing was adjudicated for emergency department patients with cTn increases >99 <superscript>th</superscript> percentile and analyzed using both contemporary and high-sensitivity (hs) cTnI assays according to sub-specialty, diagnoses, and symptoms.<br />Results: Appropriateness was determined from 1272 and 1078 adjudication forms completed for 497 and 422 patients with contemporary and hs-cTnI increases, respectively. Appropriateness of cTnI testing across adjudication forms was 71.5% and 72.0% for cTnI and hs-cTnI, respectively. Compared with emergency physicians, cardiologists were less likely to classify cTnI orders as appropriate (cTnI: 79% vs 56%, P < .0001; hs-cTnI: 82% vs 51%, P < .0001). For contemporary cTnI, appropriateness of 95%, 70%, and 39% was observed among adjudication forms completed by cardiologists for type 1 myocardial infarction, type 2 myocardial infarction, and myocardial injury, respectively; compared with 90%, 86%, and 71%, respectively, among emergency physicians. Similar findings were observed using hs-cTnI. Discordance in appropriateness adjudication forms occurred most frequently in cases of myocardial injury (62% both assays) or type 2 myocardial infarction (cTnI 31%; hs-cTnI 23%).<br />Conclusions: Marked differences exist in the perception of what constitutes appropriate clinical use of cTn testing between cardiologists and emergency physicians, with emergency physicians more likely to see testing as appropriate across a range of clinical scenarios. Discordance derives most often from cases classified as myocardial injury or type 2 myocardial infarction.<br /> (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Subjects :
- Adult
Biomarkers blood
Cardiology statistics & numerical data
Emergency Service, Hospital statistics & numerical data
Female
Humans
Male
Myocardial Infarction blood
Myocardial Infarction diagnosis
Practice Patterns, Physicians' statistics & numerical data
Acute Coronary Syndrome blood
Troponin C blood
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 1555-7162
- Volume :
- 132
- Issue :
- 7
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- The American journal of medicine
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 30849383
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.01.043