Agreement Among High-sensitivity Cardiac Troponin Assays and Non-invasive Testing, Clinical Outcomes, and Quality-of-care Outcomes Based on the 2020 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines

Overview

Journal Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialty Cardiology & Vascular Diseases

Date 2023 Nov 24

PMID 38001050

Authors

Julia Karady

Thomas Mayrhofer

James L Januzzi

James E Udelson

Jerome L Fleg

Bela Merkely

Michael T Lu

William F Peacock

John T Nagurney

Wolfgang Koenig

Maros Ferencik

Udo Hoffmann

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aims: Quality-of-care and safety of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) would benefit if management was independent of which high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assay was used for risk stratification. We aimed to determine the concordance of hs-cTn assays to risk-stratify patients with suspected ACS according to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2020 Guidelines.

Methods And Results: Blood samples were obtained at arrival and at 2 h from patients with suspected ACS using four hs-cTn assays. The patients were classified into rule-out/observe/rule-in strata based on the ESC 2020 Guidelines. Concordance was determined among the assays for rule-out/observe/rule-in strata. The prevalences of significant underlying disease (≥50% stenosis on coronary computed tomography or inducible myocardial ischaemia on stress testing) and adjudicated ACS, plus quality-of-care outcomes, were compared. Among 238 patients (52.7 ± 8.0 years; 40.3% female), the overall concordance across assays to classify patients into rule-out/observe/rule-in strata was 74.0% (176/238). Platforms significantly differed for rule-out (89.9 vs. 76.5 vs. 78.6 vs. 86.6%, P < 0.001) and observe strata (6.7 vs. 20.6 vs. 17.7 vs. 9.2%, P < 0.001), but not for rule-in strata (3.4 vs. 2.9 vs. 3.8 vs. 4.2%, P = 0.62). Among patients in ruled-out strata, 19.1-21.6% had significant underlying disease and 3.3-4.2% had ACS. The predicted disposition of patients and cost-of-care differed across the assays (all P < 0.001). When compared with observed strata, conventional troponin-based management and predicted quality-of-care outcomes significantly improved with hs-cTn-based strategies (direct discharge: 21.0 vs. 80.3-90.8%; cost-of-care: $3889 ± 4833 vs. $2578 ± 2896-2894 ± 4371, all P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Among individuals with suspected ACS, patient management may differ depending on which hs-cTn assay is utilized. More data are needed regarding the implications of inter-assay differences.

Trail Registration: NCT01084239.

References

Ferencik M, Mayrhofer T, Lu M, Woodard P, Truong Q, Peacock W . High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin I as a Gatekeeper for Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography and Stress Testing in Patients with Acute Chest Pain. Clin Chem. 2017; 63(11):1724-1733. PMC: 7012018. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2017.275552. View

Ungerer J, Marquart L, ORourke P, Wilgen U, Pretorius C . Concordance, variance, and outliers in 4 contemporary cardiac troponin assays: implications for harmonization. Clin Chem. 2011; 58(1):274-83. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2011.175059. View

Hoffmann U, Truong Q, Fleg J, Goehler A, Gazelle S, Wiviott S . Design of the Rule Out Myocardial Ischemia/Infarction Using Computer Assisted Tomography: a multicenter randomized comparative effectiveness trial of cardiac computed tomography versus alternative triage strategies in patients with acute chest pain.... Am Heart J. 2012; 163(3):330-8, 338.e1. PMC: 3736358. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.01.028. View

Kimenai D, Henry R, van der Kallen C, Dagnelie P, Schram M, Stehouwer C . Direct comparison of clinical decision limits for cardiac troponin T and I. Heart. 2016; 102(8):610-6. DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308917. View

Gulati M, Levy P, Mukherjee D, Amsterdam E, Bhatt D, Birtcher K . 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2021; 16(1):54-122. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcct.2021.11.009. View

Sandoval Y, Apple F, Mahler S, Body R, Collinson P, Jaffe A . High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin and the 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guidelines for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Acute Chest Pain. Circulation. 2022; 146(7):569-581. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059678. View

Goehler A, Mayrhofer T, Pursnani A, Ferencik M, Lumish H, Barth C . Long-term health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of coronary CT angiography in patients with suspicion for acute coronary syndrome. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2019; 14(1):44-54. PMC: 6930365. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcct.2019.06.008. View

Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J, Horsfall M, Astley C, Karnon J, Coates P . Cost effectiveness of high-sensitivity troponin compared to conventional troponin among patients presenting with undifferentiated chest pain: A trial based analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2017; 238:144-150. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.02.141. View

Collet J, Thiele H, Barbato E, Barthelemy O, Bauersachs J, Bhatt D . 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2020; 42(14):1289-1367. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575. View

10.

Twerenbold R, Jaeger C, Gimenez M, Wildi K, Reichlin T, Nestelberger T . Impact of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin on use of coronary angiography, cardiac stress testing, and time to discharge in suspected acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(44):3324-3332. PMC: 5177796. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw232. View

11.

Ford J, Chaco E, Tancredi D, Mumma B . Impact of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin implementation on emergency department length of stay, testing, admissions, and diagnoses. Am J Emerg Med. 2021; 45:54-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.02.021. View

12.

Boeddinghaus J, Twerenbold R, Nestelberger T, Badertscher P, Wildi K, Puelacher C . Clinical Validation of a Novel High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin I Assay for Early Diagnosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction. Clin Chem. 2018; 64(9):1347-1360. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2018.286906. View

13.

Hoffmann U, Truong Q, Schoenfeld D, Chou E, Woodard P, Nagurney J . Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(4):299-308. PMC: 3662217. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1201161. View

14.

Gimenez M, Twerenbold R, Reichlin T, Wildi K, Haaf P, Schaefer M . Direct comparison of high-sensitivity-cardiac troponin I vs. T for the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(34):2303-11. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu188. View

15.

Landis J, Koch G . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1):159-74. View

16.

Gulati M, Levy P, Mukherjee D, Amsterdam E, Bhatt D, Birtcher K . 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021; 144(22):e368-e454. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001029. View

17.

Klinkenberg L, Wildi K, van der Linden N, Kouw I, Niens M, Twerenbold R . Diurnal Rhythm of Cardiac Troponin: Consequences for the Diagnosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction. Clin Chem. 2016; 62(12):1602-1611. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2016.257485. View

18.

Twerenbold R, Neumann J, Sorensen N, Ojeda F, Karakas M, Boeddinghaus J . Prospective Validation of the 0/1-h Algorithm for Early Diagnosis of Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 72(6):620-632. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.05.040. View

19.

Karady J, Mayrhofer T, Ferencik M, Nagurney J, Udelson J, Kammerlander A . Discordance of High-Sensitivity Troponin Assays in Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021; 77(12):1487-1499. PMC: 8040768. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.01.046. View

20.

Corsini A, Vagnarelli F, Bugani G, Bacchi Reggiani M, Semprini F, Nanni S . Impact of high-sensitivity Troponin T on hospital admission, resources utilization, and outcomes. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2014; 4(2):148-57. DOI: 10.1177/2048872614547687. View