-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Three-month outcome of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome using point-of-care cardiac troponin-T testing compared with laboratory-based cardiac troponin-T testing: a randomised trial.
- Stephen Edward Asha, Andrew Cooke, Elizabeth Walter, and James Weaver.
- Emergency Department, St George Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Emergency Department, St George Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
- Emerg Med J. 2015 Aug 1;32(8):601-7.
ObjectiveThe aim of this randomised trial was to determine clinical outcomes in patients suspected of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who had cardiac troponin-T measured by point-of-care (POC) compared with laboratory-based cardiac troponin-T testing. A secondary aim was to describe the correlation between the two troponin assays.MethodsAdults suspected of ACS were allocated to have troponin processed by POC or laboratory analyser. The primary outcome was a composite of acute myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, cardiac arrest and mortality at 3 months. Paired troponins taken on participants allocated to POC were used to determine correlation between troponin values obtained from laboratory and POC analysers.ResultsThere were 452 participants. 30 (13.1%) of 229 participants allocated to POC had at least one primary outcome event compared with 29 (13.0%) of 223 allocated to laboratory testing, a difference of 0.1% (95% CI -6.2% to 6.4%, p=0.98). Of 215 available paired troponins results, both analysers gave congruent results in 196 (91%) cases. The POC troponin was negative when the laboratory sample was positive in 16 (7%) cases. The POC troponin was positive when the laboratory sample was negative in 3 (1%) samples. Passing-Bablok regression analysis demonstrated both a constant and proportional difference between the two analytic methods.ConclusionsAmong patients suspected of an ACS, we found no evidence for a difference in adverse outcome when POC troponin was used in comparison with laboratory troponin. Due to the small sample size, an absolute difference of up to 6% in adverse outcome is possible.Trial Registration NumberANZCTR#12612000319875.Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:

- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.