Performance of the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-Hour, 0/2-Hour, and 0/3-Hour Algorithms for Rapid Triage of Acute Myocardial Infarction : An International Collaborative Meta-analysis
Chiang CH, Chiang CH, Pickering JW, Stoyanov KM, Chew DP, Neumann JT, Ojeda F, Sörensen NA, Su KY, Kavsak P, Worster A, Inoue K, Johannessen TR, Atar D, Amann M, Hochholzer W, Mokhtari A, Ekelund U, Twerenbold R, Mueller C, Bahrmann P, Buttinger N, Dooley M, Ruangsomboon O, Nowak RM, DeFilippi CR, Peacock WF, Neilan TG, Liu MA, Hsu WT, Lee GH, Tang PU, Ma KS, Westermann D, Blankenberg S, Giannitsis E, Than MP, and Lee CC. Performance of the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-Hour, 0/2-Hour, and 0/3-Hour Algorithms for Rapid Triage of Acute Myocardial Infarction : An International Collaborative Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2021.
Annals of internal medicine
BACKGROUND: 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).
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracies of the ESC 0/1-hour, 0/2-hour, and 0/3-hour algorithms.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2020. (PROSPERO: CRD42020216479).
STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies that evaluated the ESC 0/1-hour, 0/2-hour, or 0/3-hour algorithms in adult patients presenting with suspected AMI.
DATA EXTRACTION: 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.
DATA SYNTHESIS: 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 scorepain-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.
LIMITATION: Diagnostic accuracy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and cardiac troponin sampling time varied among studies.
CONCLUSION: The ESC 0/1-hour and 0/2-hour algorithms have higher sensitivities and NPVs than the 0/3-hour algorithm for index AMI.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Taiwan University Hospital.
ePub ahead of print