Abstract
ABSTRACTBackgroundCardiac troponin (cTn) measurement is pivotal in diagnosing and managing chest pain. High-sensitivity cTn (hs-cTn) assays are slowly supplanting conventional cardiac troponin (c-cTn) use, allowing earlier identification of high-risk patients and diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI). This improved sensitivity is said to come at the cost of reduced specificity for MI. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the exact impact of this change in patient management and outcomes.ObjectivesTo compare outcomes and management of patients with chest pain when using hs-cTn versus c-cTn.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of studies in all languages across various databases. Inclusion criteria for studies were (1) observational or randomized trials, (2) included adult patients presenting with chest pain, (3) use of hs-cTn or c-cTn in diagnosis, (3) reported data on any of the pre-defined outcomes. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), MI following index admission, coronary angiography, and revascularization. Study quality was appraised using the Cochrane Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale for observational studies. Outcomes were analyzed using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3, employing Mantel-Haenszel analysis of random effects to compute for relative risk and odds ratio.ResultsPooled analysis from 5 studies showed that among patients with chest pain, those for whom hs-cTn over c-cTn was used had no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92-1.12, p=0.82, I2=0%), a significant decrease in MI (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.87, p=0.0003) and a trend towards increase in MACE (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00-1.16, p=0.04, I2=0%). They were more likely to undergo coronary angiogram (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.02-2.28, p=0.04) and revascularization (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.03-1.75, p=0.03).ConclusionUse of hs-cTn over conventional cTn led to higher rates of coronary angiography and revascularization. While there was significant reduction in myocardial infarction, there was no reduction in all-cause mortality and even a trends towards increased MACE.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Reference50 articles.
1. Intitute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2011.
2. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.2011.
3. Sex Differences in the Presentation and Perception of Symptoms Among Young Patients With Myocardial Infarction
4. Chest pain in primary care: Epidemiology and pre-work-up probabilities
5. 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