U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of High-sensitivity troponin assays for the early rule-out or diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in people with acute chest pain: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

High-sensitivity troponin assays for the early rule-out or diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in people with acute chest pain: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Health Technology Assessment, No. 19.44

, , , , , , , , , and .

Author Information and Affiliations
Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; .

Headline

The study found some evidence to suggest that high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing may provide an effective and cost-effective approach to the early rule-out of acute myocardial infarction in adults presenting with acute chest pain.

Abstract

Background:

Early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) can ensure quick and effective treatment but only 20% of adults with emergency admissions for chest pain have an AMI. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays may allow rapid rule-out of AMI and avoidance of unnecessary hospital admissions and anxiety.

Objective:

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hs-cTn assays for the early (within 4 hours of presentation) rule-out of AMI in adults with acute chest pain.

Methods:

Sixteen databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, research registers and conference proceedings, were searched to October 2013. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. The bivariate model was used to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity for meta-analyses involving four or more studies, otherwise random-effects logistic regression was used. The health-economic analysis considered the long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with different troponin (Tn) testing methods. The de novo model consisted of a decision tree and Markov model. A lifetime time horizon (60 years) was used.

Results:

Eighteen studies were included in the clinical effectiveness review. The optimum strategy, based on the Roche assay, used a limit of blank (LoB) threshold in a presentation sample to rule out AMI [negative likelihood ratio (LR–) 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.18]. Patients testing positive could then have a further test at 2 hours; a result above the 99th centile on either sample and a delta (Δ) of ≥ 20% has some potential for ruling in an AMI [positive likelihood ratio (LR+) 8.42, 95% CI 6.11 to 11.60], whereas a result below the 99th centile on both samples and a Δ of < 20% can be used to rule out an AMI (LR– 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.10). The optimum strategy, based on the Abbott assay, used a limit of detection (LoD) threshold in a presentation sample to rule out AMI (LR– 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.08). Patients testing positive could then have a further test at 3 hours; a result above the 99th centile on this sample has some potential for ruling in an AMI (LR+ 10.16, 95% CI 8.38 to 12.31), whereas a result below the 99th centile can be used to rule out an AMI (LR– 0.02, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05). In the base-case analysis, standard Tn testing was both most effective and most costly. Strategies considered cost-effective depending upon incremental cost-effectiveness ratio thresholds were Abbott 99th centile (thresholds of < £6597), Beckman 99th centile (thresholds between £6597 and £30,042), Abbott optimal strategy (LoD threshold at presentation, followed by 99th centile threshold at 3 hours) (thresholds between £30,042 and £103,194) and the standard Tn test (thresholds over £103,194). The Roche 99th centile and the Roche optimal strategy [LoB threshold at presentation followed by 99th centile threshold and/or Δ20% (compared with presentation test) at 1–3 hours] were extendedly dominated in this analysis.

Conclusions:

There is some evidence to suggest that hs-CTn testing may provide an effective and cost-effective approach to early rule-out of AMI. Further research is needed to clarify optimal diagnostic thresholds and testing strategies.

Study registration:

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005939.

Funding:

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Contents

Article history

The research reported in this issue of the journal was commissioned and funded by the HTA programme on behalf of NICE as project number 13/51/01. The protocol was agreed in September 2013. The assessment report began editorial review in April 2014 and was accepted for publication in October 2014. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.

Declared competing interests of authors

none

Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2015. This work was produced by Westwood et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

Bookshelf ID: NBK299646DOI: 10.3310/hta19440

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (1.6M)

Other titles in this collection

Related information

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...