Kavsak Peter A, Hewitt Mark K, Mondoux Shawn E, Cerasuolo Joshua O, Ma Jinhui, Clayton Natasha, McQueen Matthew, Griffith Lauren E, Perez Richard, Seow Hsien, Ainsworth Craig, Ko Dennis T, Worster Andrew
Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Division of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2021 Aug 13;8(8):97. doi: 10.3390/jcdd8080097.
Serial high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hsTn) testing in the emergency department (ED) and the intensive cardiac care unit may assist physicians in ruling out or ruling in acute myocardial infarction (MI). There are three major algorithms proposed for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hsTnI) using serial measurements while incorporating absolute concentration changes for MI or death following ED presentation. We sought to determine the diagnostic estimates of these three algorithms and if one was superior in two different Canadian ED patient cohorts with serial hsTnI measurements. An undifferentiated ED population (Cohort-1) and an ED population with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome (ACS; Cohort-2) were clinically managed with non-hsTn testing with the hsTnI testing performed in real-time with physicians blinded to these results (i.e., hsTnI not reported). The three algorithms evaluated were the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the High-STEACS pathway, and the COMPASS-MI algorithm. The diagnostic estimates were derived for each algorithm for the 30-day MI/death outcome for the rule-out and rule-in arm in each cohort and compared to proposed diagnostic benchmarks (i.e., sensitivity ≥ 99.0% and specificity ≥ 90.0%) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). In Cohort-1 ( = 2966 patients, 15.3% had outcome) and Cohort-2 ( = 935 patients, 15.6% had outcome), the algorithm that obtained the highest sensitivity (97.8%; 95% CI: 96.0-98.9 and 98.6%; 95% CI: 95.1-99.8, respectively) in both cohorts was COMPASS-MI. Only Cohort-2 with both the ESC and COMPASS-MI algorithms exceeded the specificity benchmark (97.0%; 95% CI: 95.5-98.0 and 96.7%; 95% CI: 95.2-97.8, respectively). Patient selection for serial hsTnI testing will affect specificity estimates, with no algorithm achieving a sensitivity ≥ 99% for 30-day MI or death.
在急诊科(ED)和重症心脏监护病房进行连续高敏心肌肌钙蛋白(hsTn)检测,可能有助于医生排除或确诊急性心肌梗死(MI)。目前提出了三种主要算法,用于基于连续测量的高敏心肌肌钙蛋白I(hsTnI),同时纳入急诊就诊后MI或死亡的绝对浓度变化。我们试图确定这三种算法的诊断估计值,以及在两个不同的加拿大急诊科患者队列中,通过连续hsTnI测量,是否有一种算法更具优势。一个未分化的急诊科人群(队列1)和一个有急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)症状的急诊科人群(队列2),在临床管理中采用非hsTn检测,并实时进行hsTnI检测,医生对检测结果不知情(即不报告hsTnI结果)。评估的三种算法分别是欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)算法、High-STEACS途径算法和COMPASS-MI算法。针对每个队列中排除和确诊组的30天MI/死亡结局,得出每种算法的诊断估计值,并与建议的诊断基准(即敏感性≥99.0%,特异性≥90.0%)及95%置信区间(CI)进行比较。在队列1(n = 2966例患者,15.3%有结局)和队列2(n = 935例患者,15.6%有结局)中,在两个队列中获得最高敏感性的算法(分别为97.8%;95% CI:96.0 - 98.9和98.6%;95% CI:95.1 - 99.8)是COMPASS-MI算法。只有队列2中ESC算法和COMPASS-MI算法的特异性超过了基准(分别为97.0%;95% CI:95.5 - 98.0和96.7%;95% CI:95.2 - 97.8)。连续hsTnI检测的患者选择会影响特异性估计值,没有一种算法对30天MI或死亡的敏感性能达到≥99%。