Implementation and evaluation of a rural general practice assessment pathway for possible cardiac chest pain using point-of-care troponin testing: a pilot study

How Close Are We to Patient-Side Troponin Testing?

Laboratory-based high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing has been the pillar for emergency stratification of suspected acute coronary syndrome for well over a decade. Point-of-care troponin assays achieving the requisite analytical sensitivity have recently been developed and could accelerate such assessment. This review summarises the latest assays and describes their potential diverse clinical utility in the emergency department, community healthcare, pre-hospital, and other hospital settings. It outlines the current clinical data but also highlights the evidence gap, particularly the need for clinical trials using whole blood, that must be addressed for safe and successful implementation of point-of-care troponin analysis into daily practice. Additionally, how point-of-care troponin testing can be coupled with advances in biosensor technology, cardiovascular screening, and triage algorithms is discussed.

Troponin testing in routine primary care: observations from a dynamic cohort study in the Amsterdam metropolitan area

OBJECTIVES

Troponin testing is indicated in the diagnostic work-up of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and incorporated in risk stratification pathways. This study aims to gain insights on the use, outcomes, and diagnostic accuracy of troponin testing in routine primary care; a setting that is understudied.

METHODS

Routine data were used from the academic primary care network in the Amsterdam metropolitan area (968,433 patient records). The study population included adult patients who underwent high-sensitivity troponin I or T (hs-TnI/T) testing between 2011 and 2021. The primary outcome was the reported diagnosis and the secondary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy measured by death or ACS at 30 days.

RESULTS

3,184 patients underwent hs-troponin testing, either with hsTNT (n=2,333) or hsTNI (n=851). Median patients' age was 55 (44-65) years, and 62.3 % were female. Predominant symptoms were chest pain and dyspnea (56.7 %). Additional diagnostic laboratory tests were commonly performed (CRP: 47.7 %, natriuretic peptides: 25.6 %, d-dimer: 21.5 %). Most common diagnoses were musculoskeletal symptoms (21.6 %) and coronary heart disease (7.1 %; 1.1 % ACS). Troponin testing showed sensitivity and specificity of 77.8 % (60.9-89.9) and 94.3 % (93.5-95.1), respectively. Negative and positive predictive values were 99.7 (99.5-99.9) and 13.5 (11.1-16.4), and positive and negative likelihood ratios were 13.7 (10.9-17.1) and 0.24 (0.13-0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

GPs occasionally use troponin testing in very low-risk patients, often as part of a multi-marker rule-out strategy. The diagnostic characteristics of troponin tests, while promising, warrant prospective validation and implementation to facilitate appropriate use.

Measurement of Cardiac-Specific Biomarkers in the Emergency Department: New Insight in Risk Evaluation

The aim of this article review is to analyze some models and clinical issues related to the implementation of accelerated diagnostic protocols based on specific cardiac biomarkers in patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) with symptoms compatible with acute cardiac disorders. Four specific clinical issues will be discussed in detail: (a) pathophysiological and clinical interpretations of circulating hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT levels; (b) the clinical relevance and estimation of the biological variation of biomarkers in patients admitted to the ED with acute and severe diseases; (c) the role and advantages of the point-of-care testing (POCT) methods for cardiac-specific biomarkers in pre-hospital and hospital clinical practice; and (d) the clinical role of specific cardiac biomarkers in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). In order to balance the risk between a hasty discharge versus the potential harms caused by a cardiac assessment in patients admitted to the ED with suspected acute cardiovascular disease, the measurement of specific cardiac biomarkers is essential for the early identification of the presence of myocardial dysfunction and/or injury and to significantly reduce the length and costs of hospitalization. Moreover, specific cardiac biomarkers (especially hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT) are useful predictors of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients admitted to the ED with suspected acute cardiovascular disease. To guide the implementation of the most rapid algorithms for the diagnosis of Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI) into routine clinical practice, clinical scientific societies and laboratory medicine societies should promote collaborative studies specifically designed for the evaluation of the analytical performance and, especially, the cost/benefit ratio resulting from the use of these clinical protocols and POCT methods in the ED clinical practice.

Facilitators and barriers of the implementation of point-of-care devices for cardiometabolic diseases: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care testing (POCT) devices may facilitate the delivery of rapid and timely results, providing a clinically important advantage in patient management. The challenges and constraints in the implementation process, considering different levels of actors have not been much explored. This scoping review aimed to assess literature pertaining to implementation facilitators and barriers of POCT devices for the diagnosis or monitoring of cardiometabolic diseases.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature was conducted. The inclusion criteria were studies on the inception, planning, or implementation of interventions with POCT devices for the diagnosis or monitoring of cardiometabolic diseases defined as dyslipidemia, cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Health databases using the OVID searching engine until May 2022. The Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to classify implementation barriers and facilitators in five constructs. Also, patient, healthcare professional (HCP), and organization level was used.

RESULTS

Twenty studies met the eligibility criteria for data extraction. All studies except two were conducted in high-income countries. Some findings are: 1) Intervention: the most widely recognized facilitator was the quick turnaround time with which results are obtained. 2) Outer setting: at the organizational level, the lack of clear regulatory and accreditation mechanisms has hindered the adoption and sustainability of the use of POCT. 3) Inner setting: for HCP, performing POCT during the consultation was both a facilitator and a barrier in terms of time, personnel, and service delivery. 4) Individuals: the implementation of POCT may generate stress and discomfort in some HCP in terms of training and new responsibilities. 5) Process: for patients, it is highly appreciated that obtaining the sample was simple and more comfortable if venipuncture was not used.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review has described the facilitators and barriers of implementing a POCT device for cardiometabolic conditions using the CFIR. The information can be used to design better strategies to implement these devices and benefit more populations that have low access to cardiometabolic tests.