Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, and National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan (Cho-Han Chiang).
Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan (Cho-Hung Chiang).
Ann Intern Med. 2022 Jan;175(1):101-113. doi: 10.7326/M21-1499. Epub 2021 Nov 23.
The 2020 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend using the 0/1-hour and 0/2-hour algorithms over the 0/3-hour algorithm as the first and second choices of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn)-based strategies for triage of patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracies of the ESC 0/1-hour, 0/2-hour, and 0/3-hour algorithms.
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2020. (PROSPERO: CRD42020216479).
Prospective studies that evaluated the ESC 0/1-hour, 0/2-hour, or 0/3-hour algorithms in adult patients presenting with suspected AMI.
The primary outcome was index AMI. Twenty unique cohorts were identified. Primary data were obtained from investigators of 16 cohorts and aggregate data were extracted from 4 cohorts. Two independent authors assessed each study for methodological quality.
A total of 32 studies (20 cohorts) with 30 066 patients were analyzed. The 0/1-hour algorithm had a pooled sensitivity of 99.1% (95% CI, 98.5% to 99.5%) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.8% (CI, 99.6% to 99.9%) for ruling out AMI. The 0/2-hour algorithm had a pooled sensitivity of 98.6% (CI, 97.2% to 99.3%) and NPV of 99.6% (CI, 99.4% to 99.8%). The 0/3-hour algorithm had a pooled sensitivity of 93.7% (CI, 87.4% to 97.0%) and NPV of 98.7% (CI, 97.7% to 99.3%). Sensitivity of the 0/3-hour algorithm was attenuated in studies that did not use clinical criteria (GRACE score <140 and pain-free) compared with studies that used clinical criteria (90.2% [CI, 82.9 to 94.6] vs. 98.4% [CI, 88.6 to 99.8]). All 3 algorithms had similar specificities and positive predictive values for ruling in AMI, but heterogeneity across studies was substantial. Diagnostic performance was similar across the hs-cTnT (Elecsys; Roche), hs-cTnI (Architect; Abbott), and hs-cTnI (Centaur/Atellica; Siemens) assays.
Diagnostic accuracy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and cardiac troponin sampling time varied among studies.
The ESC 0/1-hour and 0/2-hour algorithms have higher sensitivities and NPVs than the 0/3-hour algorithm for index AMI.
National Taiwan University Hospital.
2020 年欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)指南推荐使用 0/1 小时和 0/2 小时算法作为基于高敏心肌肌钙蛋白(hs-cTn)的策略对疑似急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者进行分诊的首选和次选方法。
评估 ESC 0/1 小时、0/2 小时和 0/3 小时算法的诊断准确性。
从 2011 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 12 月 31 日,PubMed、Embase、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库、Web of Science 和 Scopus。(PROSPERO:CRD42020216479)。
前瞻性研究评估了 ESC 0/1 小时、0/2 小时或 0/3 小时算法在疑似 AMI 就诊的成年患者中的应用。
主要结局为指数 AMI。确定了 20 个独特的队列。主要数据来自 16 个队列的研究者,汇总数据来自 4 个队列。两名独立作者评估了每个研究的方法学质量。
共分析了 32 项研究(20 个队列),涉及 30066 名患者。0/1 小时算法的排除 AMI 的汇总敏感性为 99.1%(95%CI,98.5%至 99.5%),阴性预测值(NPV)为 99.8%(CI,99.6%至 99.9%)。0/2 小时算法的汇总敏感性为 98.6%(CI,97.2%至 99.3%),NPV 为 99.6%(CI,99.4%至 99.8%)。0/3 小时算法的汇总敏感性为 93.7%(CI,87.4%至 97.0%),NPV 为 98.7%(CI,97.7%至 99.3%)。与使用临床标准(GRACE 评分<140 和无疼痛)的研究相比,未使用临床标准的研究中 0/3 小时算法的敏感性降低(90.2%[CI,82.9%至 94.6%]与 98.4%[CI,88.6%至 99.8%])。所有 3 种算法在诊断 AMI 方面的特异性和阳性预测值相似,但研究间存在很大的异质性。诊断性能在 hs-cTnT(Elecsys;罗氏)、hs-cTnI(Architect;雅培)和 hs-cTnI(Centaur/Atellica;西门子)检测中相似。
诊断准确性、纳入和排除标准以及心肌肌钙蛋白采样时间在研究之间存在差异。
ESC 0/1 小时和 0/2 小时算法在诊断指数 AMI 方面的敏感性和 NPV 均高于 0/3 小时算法。
台湾大学医院。