文献速递冠心病

疑似ACS的0/1小时与0/3小时肌钙蛋白加速诊断路径随机试验解读

Accelerated Diagnostic Pathways for Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome in Practice: A Randomized Trial of 0/1-Hour vs 0/3-Hour Troponin Testing.
PubMed 文献 · J Am Coll Cardiol · 2026-05-20

该PRAGMATIC随机非劣效实施试验纳入3543例疑似ACS急诊患者,比较ESC 0/1小时与0/3小时hs-cTn加速诊断路径的真实世界效率与安全性。结果显示0/1小时路径未显著提高4小时内出院比例,安全性不劣于0/3小时路径。中心实验室周转时间与系统限制削弱了缩短采样间隔的预期效率获益。

要点

  • ESC 0/1小时路径未显著提高4小时内出院比例(21.8% vs 19.2%,P=0.07)。
  • 0/1小时路径安全性不劣于0/3小时路径,敏感性绝对差为+4.2%。
  • 中心实验室hs-cTnT周转时间81分钟,削弱了0/1小时路径的效率优势。

核心结论

  • 实施ESC 0/1小时路径未能比0/3小时路径显著提高4小时内出院比例。
  • ESC 0/1小时路径在出院安全性方面不劣于0/3小时hs-cTn路径。
  • 两条路径的安全性均低于观察性研究推算的水平。
  • 中心实验室周转时间与系统约束削弱了缩短采样间隔对急诊效率的预期获益。

研究设计与样本

  • 务实、随机、非劣效实施试验,比较两种加速诊断路径在真实临床实践中的效率与安全性。
  • 采用独立hs-cTnI进行正式裁定,依据第四版心肌梗死通用定义,以防止纳入偏倚。
  • 非劣效界值为敏感性绝对差3%,以单侧97.5%CI评估。
  • 中位年龄60岁(IQR 49.5-70.5),53%为男性,裁定为索引1型MI比例6.7%。

主要发现

  • 中心实验室hs-cTnT从采样到出结果的中位周转时间为81分钟(IQR 69-101分钟)。
  • 4小时内出院比例较低,0/1小时路径为21.8%,0/3小时路径为19.2%,P=0.07。
  • 出院患者中0/1小时路径相对0/3小时路径的敏感性绝对差为+4.2%(单侧97.5%CI:-2.5),支持0/1小时路径。
  • 敏感性分别为93.7%(95%CI:88.4%-97.1%)与89.5%(95%CI:82.7%-94.3%)。

关键数值与推荐

  • 安全性终点为30天内MACE,包括裁定的索引或再就诊1型MI、心血管死亡与紧急冠状动脉血运重建。
  • 效率判定标准为4小时内出院患者比例。
  • 非劣效界值设定为敏感性绝对差3%,以单侧97.5%CI评估。
  • 索引1型MI裁定比例6.7%,30天MACE发生比例7.6%。

临床怎么用

  • 急诊实施0/1小时路径时需考虑中心实验室周转时间对整体流程效率的制约。
  • 仅靠缩短肌钙蛋白采样间隔不足以改善急诊疑似ACS患者的早期出院效率。
  • 实施加速诊断路径应结合系统层面流程优化与实验室快速周转能力综合评估。

局限性

  • 两条路径的安全性均低于观察性研究推算的水平。
  • 4小时内出院比例较低,提示真实世界中存在实验室周转时间与系统层面的实施限制。

以上解读依据论文摘要(全文未开放获取或许可不允许翻译转载)。

原文

BACKGROUND: For suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS), guidelines recommend using high-sensitivity troponins (hs-cTn) in accelerated diagnostic pathways (ADPs) with 0/1-hour recommended over 0/3-hour ADP. However, implementation of these ADPs, with universal use of hs-cTns, has not been directly compared in randomized trials OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the efficiency and safety of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-hour and a 0/3-hour ADP when implemented in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: This pragmatic, randomized, noninferiority implementation trial compared the safety and efficiency of clinician decision making using these 2 pathways. To prevent incorporation bias, an independent hs-cTnI was used for formal adjudication using the fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (MI). Efficiency was judged by the proportion of patients discharged within 4 hours. The safety endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 30 days (adjudicated index or representation type 1 MI, cardiovascular death, and urgent coronary revascularization) for those who were considered not to have ACS and discharged. The noninferiority margin, for absolute difference in sensitivity, between the ESC 0/1-hour and the 0/3-hour ADP was set at 3%, assessed with a 1-sided 97.5% CI. RESULTS: From December 2021 to July 2024, of 13,983 screened 3,543 individual patients with suspected ACS were recruited and consented from 2 major emergency departments in North-West England, with 100% follow-up achieved for all representations to any national hospital. The median age was 60 years (IQR: 49.5-70.5 years), 53% were men, 6.7%, and 7.6% had adjudicated index type 1 MI and MACE within 30 days, respectively. The turnaround time from sample to result for central laboratory hs-cTnT was 81 minutes (IQR: 69-101 minutes). The proportion of patients discharged within 4 hours was relatively low and did not differ substantially (21.8% vs 19.2%, P = 0.07). In addition, the 0/1-hour pathway was noninferior for safety, in patients discharged, compared with the 0/3-hour pathway, absolute difference in sensitivity was +4.2% (1-sided 97.5% CI: -2.5) in favor of the 0/1-hour pathway. The calculated sensitivities were 93.7% (95% CI: 88.4%-97.1%) vs 89.5% (95% CI: 82.7%-94.3%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ESC 0/1-hour pathway failed to discharge significantly more patients within 4 hours of presentation compared with the 0/3-hour ADP. In addition, The ESC 0/1-hour was noninferior to the 0/3-hour hs-cTn pathway for safety of discharge, although safety for both pathways was less than that imputed by observational studies. This trial demonstrates that perceived benefits to emergency department efficiency of a reduced sampling interval are mitigated by central laboratory turnaround times as well as system constraints. (Pragmatic Randomised Trial of the ESC 0/1 Versus 0/3 Hour Troponin Pathway [MACROS2]; NCT05322395).

来源:J Am Coll Cardiol,查看原文。版权归原作者所有。

引用

  1. Hatherley, Dakshi, Collinson, et al. Accelerated Diagnostic Pathways for Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome in Practice: A Randomized Trial of 0/1-Hour vs 0/3-Hour Troponin Testing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026. PMID: 42159533. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2026.02.5135

供执业医师工作参考,不替代临床判断;数值与分级以指南原文为准。