ReviewEuropean heart journal2016
Highly sensitive troponin and coronary computed tomography angiography in the evaluation of suspected acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department.
Review in European heart journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Clinical Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Development and validation of deep learning model for detection of obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with acute chest pain: a multi-center study.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Trends in non-focal neurological chief complaints and CT angiography utilization among adults in the emergency department.Internal and emergency medicine · 2024Observational
- Article
- Diagnosis of myocardial ischemia combining multiphase postmortem CT-angiography, histology, and postmortem biochemistry.La Radiologia medica · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The evaluation of patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains a clinical challenge. The traditional assessment includes clinical risk assessment based on cardiovascular risk factors with serial electrocardiograms and cardiac troponin measurements, often followed by advanced cardiac testing as inpatient or outpatient (i.e. stress testing, imaging). Despite this costly and lengthy work-up, there is a non-negligible rate of missed ACS with an increased risk of death. There is a clinical need for diagnostic strategies that will lead to rapid and reliable triage of patients with suspected ACS. We provide an overview of the evidence for the role of highly sensitive troponin (hsTn) in the rapid and efficient evaluation of suspected ACS. Results of recent research studies have led to the introduction of hsTn with rapid rule-in and rule-out protocols into the guidelines. Highly sensitive troponin increases the sensitivity for the detection of myocardial infarction and decreases time to diagnosis; however, it may decrease the specificity, especially when used as a dichotomous variable, rather than continuous variable as recommended by guidelines; this may increase clinician uncertainty. We summarize the evidence for the use of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) as the rapid diagnostic tool in this population when used with conventional troponin assays. Coronary CTA significantly decreases time to diagnosis and discharge in patients with suspected ACS, while being safe. However, it may lead to increase in invasive procedures and includes radiation exposure. Finally, we outline the opportunities for the combined use of hsTn and coronary CTA that may result in increased efficiency, decreased need for imaging, lower cost, and decreased radiation dose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.