Comparison of the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-Hour and High-Sensitivity Troponin in the Evaluation of Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome 0/2-or-0/3-Hour Algorithms for Rapid Myocardial Infarction Diagnosis

Background: The optimal approach for the early diagnosis of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains uncertain, because no large trials have been performed. Accordingly, guideline recommendations differ and do not overall give a clear answer. Objectives: The authors aimed to directly compare the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-hour algorithm (ESC 0/1h-algorithm) and the high-sensitivity troponin in the evaluation of patients with acute coronary syndrome 0/2-hour or 0/3-hour pathway (High-STEACS 0/2h-0/3h-pathway) in patients presenting with acute chest discomfort. Methods: This prospective, international, multicenter, diagnostic study enrolled patients presenting to the emergency department with acute chest discomfort. Final diagnoses were centrally adjudicated by 2 independent cardiologists. The primary diagnostic endpoint was NSTEMI type 1. Both algorithms were applied in parallel using 3 high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays: hs-cTnI-Architect, hs-cTnI-Centaur/Atellica, and hs-cTnT-Elecsys. The findings were externally validated in an independent prospective diagnostic study. Results: Among 4,663 eligible patients (median age: 61 years; 32% women), 663 (14.2%) had NSTEMI type 1. The ESC 0/1h-algorithm had higher sensitivity when using hs-cTnI-Architect (100% [95% CI: 99.4-100]) compared with the High-STEACS 0/2h-pathway (98.1% [95% CI: 96.7-99], P < 0.001), but the proportion of patients assigned to the rule-out group was lower (52% vs 72.5%, P < 0.001). Differences were similar but were less pronounced for hs-cTnI-Centaur/Atellica and absent for hs-cTnT-Elecsys. Specificity was consistently higher for the ESC 0/1h-algorithms vs the High-STEACS 0/2h-0/3h-pathways for all hs-cTnT/I-assays. These findings were confirmed when using High-STEACS 0/3h-pathways and in the external validation cohort (n = 2,485; median age: 64 years; 37% women). Conclusions: Overall, both algorithms exhibited comparable and excellent performance. When using hs-cTnI, the ESC-0/1h-algorithms showed higher sensitivity, whereas the High-STEACS 0/2h-0/3h-pathways demonstrated higher efficacy. Consistently, the ESC 0/1h-algorithms showed higher specificity for NSTEMI. These findings provide direct, validated evidence to guide hospitals in selecting an hs-cTn pathway aligned with their clinical and operational priorities. (Advantageous Predictors of Acute Coronary Syndromes Evaluation [APACE] Study [APACE], NCT00470587; Biomarkers in Acute Cardiac Care [BACC], NCT02355457).