Comparison of fourteen rule-out strategies for acute myocardial infarction

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F65269705%3A_____%2F19%3A00070523" target="_blank" >RIV/65269705:_____/19:00070523 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216224:14110/19:00109666

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167527318347843?via%3Dihub" target="_blank" >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167527318347843?via%3Dihub</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.11.140" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.11.140</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Comparison of fourteen rule-out strategies for acute myocardial infarction

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Background: The clinical availability of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) has enabled the development of several innovative strategies for the rapid rule-out of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Due to the lack of direct comparisons, selection of the best strategy for clinical practice is challenging. Methods: In a prospective international multicenter diagnostic study enrolling 3696 patients presenting with suspected AMI to the emergency department, we compared the safety and efficacy of 14 different hs-cTn-based strategies: hs-cTn concentrations below the limit of detection (LoD), dual-marker combining hs-cTn with copeptin, ESC 0 h/1 h-algorithm, 0 h/2 h-algorithm, 2 h-ADP-algorithm, NICE-algorithm, and ESC 0 h/3 h-algorithm, each using either hs-cTnT or hs-cTnI. The final diagnosis of AMI was adjudicated by two independent cardiologists using all available clinical information including cardiac imaging and serial hs-cTn concentrations. Results: AMI was the final diagnosis in 16% of patients. Using hs-cTnT, safety quantified by the negative predictive value (NPV) and sensitivity was very high (99.8-100% and 99.5-100%) and comparable for all strategies, except the dual-marker approach (NPV 98.7%, sensitivity 96.7%). Similarly, using hs-cTnI, safety quantified by the NPV and sensitivity was very high (99.7-100% and 98.9-100%) and comparable for all strategies, except the dual-marker approach (NPV 96.9%, sensitivity 90.4%) and the NICE-algorithm (NPV 99.1%, sensitivity 94.7%). Efficacy, quantified by the percentage of patients eligible for rule-out, differed markedly, and was lowest for LoD-algorithm (15.7-26.8%). Conclusion: All rapid rule-out algorithms, except the dual-marker strategy and the NICE-algorithm using hs-cTnI, favorably combine safety and efficacy, and can be considered for routine clinical practice. Clinical trial registration: NCT00470587, http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00470587. (c) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Comparison of fourteen rule-out strategies for acute myocardial infarction

Popis výsledku anglicky

Background: The clinical availability of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) has enabled the development of several innovative strategies for the rapid rule-out of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Due to the lack of direct comparisons, selection of the best strategy for clinical practice is challenging. Methods: In a prospective international multicenter diagnostic study enrolling 3696 patients presenting with suspected AMI to the emergency department, we compared the safety and efficacy of 14 different hs-cTn-based strategies: hs-cTn concentrations below the limit of detection (LoD), dual-marker combining hs-cTn with copeptin, ESC 0 h/1 h-algorithm, 0 h/2 h-algorithm, 2 h-ADP-algorithm, NICE-algorithm, and ESC 0 h/3 h-algorithm, each using either hs-cTnT or hs-cTnI. The final diagnosis of AMI was adjudicated by two independent cardiologists using all available clinical information including cardiac imaging and serial hs-cTn concentrations. Results: AMI was the final diagnosis in 16% of patients. Using hs-cTnT, safety quantified by the negative predictive value (NPV) and sensitivity was very high (99.8-100% and 99.5-100%) and comparable for all strategies, except the dual-marker approach (NPV 98.7%, sensitivity 96.7%). Similarly, using hs-cTnI, safety quantified by the NPV and sensitivity was very high (99.7-100% and 98.9-100%) and comparable for all strategies, except the dual-marker approach (NPV 96.9%, sensitivity 90.4%) and the NICE-algorithm (NPV 99.1%, sensitivity 94.7%). Efficacy, quantified by the percentage of patients eligible for rule-out, differed markedly, and was lowest for LoD-algorithm (15.7-26.8%). Conclusion: All rapid rule-out algorithms, except the dual-marker strategy and the NICE-algorithm using hs-cTnI, favorably combine safety and efficacy, and can be considered for routine clinical practice. Clinical trial registration: NCT00470587, http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00470587. (c) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30201 - Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

International Journal of Cardiology

ISSN

0167-5273

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

283

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

MAY 15

Stát vydavatele periodika

IE - Irsko

Počet stran výsledku

7

Strana od-do

41-47

Kód UT WoS článku

000461330100007

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85057994695