• Albert Durán-Cambra, Xavier Rosselló, Jordi Sans-Roselló, Montserrat Vila, Alberto Hidalgo, Iván Díaz- Rodríguez, Rubén Leta, Guillem Pons-Lladó, Jordi Ordóñez-Llanos, and Alessandro Sionis.
• Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, IIB-Sant Pau, España.
• Emergencias. 2016 Feb 1; 28 (1): 9-15.

ObjectivesTo determine the probability of finding significant coronary lesions, the time to diagnosis, and the safety of a new diagnostic approach based on high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hsTnT) testing followed by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in patients with chest pain of possible coronary origin. The method was compared with our hospital emergency department's standard practice.Material And MethodsUnblinded randomized controlled trial in a tertiary level university hospital between February 2011 and April 2013. We included emergency patients with chest pain and nondiagnostic electrocardiographic findings. Patients were assigned randomly to the new approach (hsTnT assay, followed by CCTA if the assay findings were negative) or the conventional approach (fourth generation TnT assay and, if negative, followed by an exercise stress test). Invasive coronary angiography was ordered in all patients if the results of either troponin assay, the CCTA, or the stress test were positive. We recorded the results of angiography, time until diagnosis, and all-cause mortality, new myocardial infarction, new unstable angina, or need for revascularization within the next 3 months.ResultsOf 102 patients randomized, 7 were excluded; 50 of the remaining 95 patients were assigned to the new strategy, and 45 to the conventional approach. Coronary angiography demonstrated significant lesions in 92.9% of the patients treated with the new strategy and 66.7% of those diagnosed conventionally. A higher percentage of patients were diagnosed within 6 hours with the new approach (20.0% vs 4.4% of conventional-approach patients, P = .023). During the 3 months following diagnosis, 1 death occurred in the intervention group and none in the conventional-approach group.ConclusionThe new strategy could accelerate diagnosis and increase the probability of finding significant coronary lesions, but we found no significant differences in adverse events in the 3 months following diagnosis. These findings should be confirmed in studies with larger numbers of patients.

3 keywords...

hide…