Cullen, Louise

Abstract Background The clinical use and interpretation of cardiac troponins (cTn) in pediatric patients is heterogeneous. Content This review is based on an appraisal and synthesis of the available literature and discussions between International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Committee on Clinical Application of Cardiac Biomarkers members and pediatricians, cardiologists, emergency department physicians, and laboratorians. It aims to summarize current knowledge and best practices related to cTn measurements in pediatric patients, including which percentile should be applicable as the upper reference limit, and the influence of age, sex, and physiology on circulating concentrations. Preanalytical and analytical precautions, and a consensus on optimal interpretation of the reported results are discussed. Summary Current studies report high cTn concentrations in healthy infants and newborns. The nadir is reached at 1–3 years at which time concentrations gradually increase, reaching adult levels through puberty. The incidence of myocardial injury is reported to be low and dependent on whether the 97.5th or 99th percentile is chosen as the upper reference limit. The main clinical indication for testing appears to be suspicion of myo/pericarditis or traumatic chest injury. On occasion, cTn is measured in cases of possible heart failure and/or myocardial ischemia. There is heterogeneity among the limited clinical studies published. Most of the data are retrospective, and the current suggestions for clinical practice are thus largely based on expert opinion. More research is needed regarding all aspects of cTn testing in children, and suggestions for future research are included at the end of this review.

Abstract A challenge in the implementation of rapid risk-stratification algorithms for patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome is the turnaround time for cardiac troponin (cTn) from blood sampling to reporting of results. Measurement of cTn in whole blood using point of care (POC) offers a solution. There is lack of consensus on how these instruments should be assessed and deployed when implemented into routine practice. A pragmatic strategy is needed to balance the requirement for appropriate evaluation, validation and local verification of POC high sensitivity (hs) cTn assays whilst avoiding unnecessary duplication of previously conducted work using central laboratory assays. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Committee on Clinical Application of Cardiac Bio-Markers (IFCC C-CB) has developed an educational document to provide practical suggestions as to how hs-cTn POC assays may be implemented in acute health care settings and networks. The objective of this document is to provide a pragmatic framework for implementation of such systems. The article describes the validation and verification procedures and outlines what should be the responsibility of the manufacturers and provides recommendations on how a local verification may be undertaken before instruments are implemented into routine clinical practice.

Abstract Aims Type 2 myocardial infarction due to myocardial oxygen supply–demand imbalance is associated with poor outcomes. There are no guidelines to inform care for these patients. The consensus on the assessment and management of type 2 myocardial infarction is gained. Methods and results An international e-Delphi study including experts in type 2 myocardial infarction identified through systematic review was conducted. Participants were asked to describe their approach to (i) definition and diagnosis, (ii) risk stratification, (iii) assessment of coronary artery disease and cardiac function, (iv) specialty management, (v) treatment and secondary prevention, and (vi) communication and rehabilitation. Statements generated in round one were circulated, with consensus defined a priori as ≥70% agreement on a 5-point Likert scale. Where no consensus was reached, statements were amended and recirculated for a final round. The response rate was 56% (38/68), 54% (37/68), and 72% (49/68) in the first, second, and third rounds, respectively. Following the first round, 67 unique statements were generated across six domains. Overall, consensus was achieved on 64% (43/67) of statements. Consensus was achieved for 42% (5/12) of statements on the diagnosis of type 2 myocardial infarction, 75% (3/4) on risk stratification, 50% (9/18) on the assessment of coronary artery disease and cardiac function, 60% (6/10), on specialty management, 100% (9/9) on treatment and secondary prevention, and 79% (11/15) on communication and rehabilitation. Conclusion Consensus was obtained across a number of domains for the assessment and management of patients with type 2 myocardial infarction. However, there was limited agreement amongst experts on the diagnostic criteria, which may benefit from refinement.

Abstract New technologies enabling access to high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays at the point of care (POC) are available for routine use. POC technology can accelerate cardiac troponin testing within the hospital setting and support testing in other healthcare environments. Pre-analytical and analytical issues unique to POC testing are discussed. The opportunities and the evidence needed to support the routine use of hs-cTn POC assays in clinical care are outlined. Based on recent developments, the potential impact of hs-cTn at the POC in multiple clinical settings is described, and a roadmap of the steps required for successful implementation is provided.

Introduction Clinical assessment in emergency departments (EDs) for possible acute myocardial infarction (AMI) requires at least one cardiac troponin (cTn) blood test. The turn-around time from blood draw to posting results in the clinical portal for central laboratory analysers is ~1–2 hours. New generation, high-sensitivity, point-of-care cardiac troponin I (POC-cTnI) assays use whole blood on a bedside (or near bedside) analyser that provides a rapid (8 min) result. This may expedite clinical decision-making and reduce length of stay. Our purpose is to determine if utilisation of a POC-cTnI testing reduces ED length of stay. We also aim to establish an optimised implementation process for the amended clinical pathway. Methods and analysis This quality improvement initiative has a pragmatic multihospital stepped-wedge cross-sectional cluster randomised design. Consecutive patients presenting to the ED with symptoms suggestive of possible AMI and having a cTn test will be included. Clusters (comprising one or two hospitals each) will change from their usual-care pathway to an amended pathway using POC-cTnI—the ‘intervention’. The dates of change will be randomised. Changes occur at 1 month intervals, with a minimum 2 month ‘run-in’ period. The intervention pathway will use a POC-cTnI measurement as an alternate to the laboratory-based cTn measurement. Clinical decision-making steps and logic will otherwise remain unchanged. The POC-cTnI is the Siemens (Erlangen Germany) Atellica VTLi high-sensitivity cTnI assay. The primary outcome is ED length of stay. The safety outcome is cardiac death or AMI within 30 days for patients discharged directly from the ED. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval has been granted by the New Zealand Southern Health and Disability Ethics Committee, reference 21/STH/9. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Lay and academic presentations will be made. Māori-specific results will be disseminated to Māori stakeholders. Trial registration number ACTRN12619001189112.

Abstract The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has increased awareness that severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) may have profound effects on the cardiovascular system. COVID-19 often affects patients with pre-existing cardiac disease, and may trigger acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), venous thromboembolism (VTE), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and acute heart failure (AHF). However, as COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory infectious disease, there remain substantial uncertainty and controversy whether and how cardiovascular biomarkers should be used in patients with suspected COVID-19. To help clinicians understand the possible value as well as the most appropriate interpretation of cardiovascular biomarkers in COVID-19, it is important to highlight that recent findings regarding the prognostic role of cardiovascular biomarkers in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are similar to those obtained in studies for pneumonia and ARDS in general. Cardiovascular biomarkers reflecting pathophysiological processes involved in COVID-19/pneumonia and its complications have a role evaluating disease severity, cardiac involvement, and risk of death in COVID-19 as well as in pneumonias caused by other pathogens. First, cardiomyocyte injury, as quantified by cardiac troponin concentrations, and haemodynamic cardiac stress, as quantified by natriuretic peptide concentrations, may occur in COVID-19 as in other pneumonias. The level of those biomarkers correlates with disease severity and mortality. Interpretation of cardiac troponin and natriuretic peptide concentrations as quantitative variables may aid in risk stratification in COVID-19/pneumonia and also will ensure that these biomarkers maintain high diagnostic accuracy for AMI and AHF. Second, activated coagulation as quantified by D-dimers seems more prominent in COVID-19 as in other pneumonias. Due to the central role of endothelitis and VTE in COVID-19, serial measurements of D-dimers may help physicians in the selection of patients for VTE imaging and the intensification of the level of anticoagulation from prophylactic to slightly higher or even therapeutic doses.

Background: Variations in cardiac troponin concentrations by age, sex, and time between samples in patients with suspected myocardial infarction are not currently accounted for in diagnostic approaches. We aimed to combine these variables through machine learning to improve the assessment of risk for individual patients. Methods: A machine learning algorithm (myocardial-ischemic-injury-index [MI 3 ]) incorporating age, sex, and paired high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I concentrations, was trained on 3013 patients and tested on 7998 patients with suspected myocardial infarction. MI 3 uses gradient boosting to compute a value (0–100) reflecting an individual’s likelihood of a diagnosis of type 1 myocardial infarction and estimates the sensitivity, negative predictive value, specificity and positive predictive value for that individual. Assessment was by calibration and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Secondary analysis evaluated example MI 3 thresholds from the training set that identified patients as low risk (99% sensitivity) and high risk (75% positive predictive value), and performance at these thresholds was compared in the test set to the 99th percentile and European Society of Cardiology rule-out pathways. Results: Myocardial infarction occurred in 404 (13.4%) patients in the training set and 849 (10.6%) patients in the test set. MI 3 was well calibrated with a very high area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.963 [0.956–0.971] in the test set and similar performance in early and late presenters. Example MI 3 thresholds identifying low- and high-risk patients in the training set were 1.6 and 49.7, respectively. In the test set, MI 3 values were <1.6 in 69.5% with a negative predictive value of 99.7% (99.5–99.8%) and sensitivity of 97.8% (96.7–98.7%), and were ≥49.7 in 10.6% with a positive predictive value of 71.8% (68.9–75.0%) and specificity of 96.7% (96.3–97.1%). Using these thresholds, MI 3 performed better than the European Society of Cardiology 0/3-hour pathway (sensitivity, 82.5% [74.5–88.8%]; specificity, 92.2% [90.7–93.5%]) and the 99th percentile at any time point (sensitivity, 89.6% [87.4–91.6%]); specificity, 89.3% [88.6–90.0%]). Conclusions: Using machine learning, MI 3 provides an individualized and objective assessment of the likelihood of myocardial infarction, which can be used to identify low- and high-risk patients who may benefit from earlier clinical decisions. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au . Unique identifier: ACTRN12616001441404.