Observational studyMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2022
Advantage of Using of High-Sensitivity Troponin I Compared to Conventional Troponin I in Shortening Time to Rule out/in Acute Coronary Syndrome in Chest Pain Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department.
Observational study in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A patient-centric chest pain management approach utilizing a high sensitivity Troponin-I assay.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Usefulness of High-Sensitivity Troponin I in Risk Stratification and Final Disposition of Patients with Acute Heart Failure in the Emergency Department: Comparison between HFpEF vs. HFrEF.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: We aimed to compare the time to diagnosis for acute coronary syndromes using high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) and conventional troponin I (TnI) in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain. Materials and Methods: This was an observational prospective study involving patients presenting to the ED of Sant’Andrea Hospital University la Sapienza in Rome (Italy) with chest pain from January to December 2014. Serum troponin was drawn at presentation, and at 3, 6, 9, and/or 12 h if clinically indicated. Depending on date of recruitment, patients had either hsTnI (Abbott Laboratories) or TnI (Abbott Laboratories) performed. The primary endpoint was the time to diagnosis at index visit. Results: A total of 1059 patients were recruited, (673 [63.6%] male, median age 60 years [interquartile range 49−73 years]), out of whom 898 (84.8%) patients were evaluated with hsTnI and 161 (15.2%) with TnI. A total of 393 (37.1%) patients had the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome in ED. The median time to diagnosis for those evaluated with TnI was 400 min, IQR 120−720 min, while the use of hsTnI led to a significantly shorter time to diagnosis (median 200 min, IQR 100−200 min, p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study confirms that in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain, the use of hsTnI is associated with a reduced time to ruling in/out ACS, and, consequently, hsTnI should be routinely used over TnI for more rapid identification of ACS with benefits for patients and related costs.
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.