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

M. Westwood, T. van Asselt, B. Ramaekers, P. Whiting, P. Thokala, M. Joore, N. Armstrong, J. Ross, J. Severens, J. Kleijnen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.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.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.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 (?) 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 ? of programme.
Original languageEnglish
JournalHealth Technology Assessment
Volume19
Issue number44
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2015

Cite this