Direct Comparison of the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-Hour Vs. 0/2-Hour Algorithms in Patients with Acute Chest Pain

Abstract

BackgroundThe recent guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology recommends using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) in either 0/1-h or 0/2-h algorithms to identify or rule out acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Several studies have reported good diagnostic accuracy with both algorithms, but few have compared the algorithms directly. ObjectiveWe aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the algorithms head-to-head, in the same patients. MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective observational study; 1167 consecutive patients presenting with chest pain to the emergency department at Skåne University Hospital (Lund, Sweden) were enrolled. Only patients with a hs-cTnT sample at presentation AND after 1 AND 2 h were included in the analysis. We compared sensitivity, specificity, and negative (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV). The primary outcome was index visit AMI. ResultsA total of 710 patients were included, of whom 56 (7.9%) had AMI. Both algorithms had a sensitivity of 98.2% and an NPV of 99.8% for ruling out AMI, but the 0/2-h algorithm ruled out significantly more patients (69.3% vs. 66.2%, p < 0.001). For rule-in, the 0/2-h algorithm had higher PPV (73.4% vs. 65.2%) and slightly better specificity (97.4% vs. 96.3%, p = 0.016) than the 0/1-h algorithm. ConclusionBoth algorithms had good diagnostic accuracy, with a slight advantage for the 0/2-h algorithm. Which algorithm to implement may thus depend on practical issues such as the ability to exploit the theoretical time saved with the 0/1-h algorithm. Further studies comparing the algorithms in combination with electrocardiography, history, or risk scores are needed.