{"title":"Accuracy of the 0/1-Hour Algorithm for Diagnosing Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.","authors":"Yuhei Kojima, Kenji Inoue, Masayuki Shiozaki, Shun Sasaki, Chien-Chang Lee, Shuo-Ju Chiang, Satoru Suwa, Tohru Minamino","doi":"10.1253/circj.CJ-24-0811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often present with symptoms similar to acute coronary syndrome (ACS), including chest pain and elevated levels of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn). The 0/1-hour algorithm using hs-cTn is a rapid diagnostic tool endorsed by the European Society of Cardiology to rule out myocardial infarction (MI). However, because its effectiveness in patients with AF remains unclear, in this study we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the 0/1-hour algorithm in patients with and without AF presenting with chest pain in the emergency department.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>We conducted a secondary analysis of the DROP-ACS cohort, including 1,333 patients from Japan and Taiwan, with AF in 10.3% of cases. We examined the algorithm's negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and specificity for ruling MI in or out. Patients with AF were more frequently placed in the observe group (54% vs. 34.9%, P<0.05) and less often in the rule-out group (24.1% vs. 44.6%, P<0.05). The NPV and sensitivity for ruling out MI were 100%, while the PPV and specificity were lower in patients with AF (60% and 89.7%, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The 0/1-hour algorithm effectively ruled out MI in patients with AF, with high safety and accuracy. However, patients with AF are more likely to be stratified into the observe group, requiring further examination for final diagnosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":50691,"journal":{"name":"Circulation Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-24-0811","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often present with symptoms similar to acute coronary syndrome (ACS), including chest pain and elevated levels of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn). The 0/1-hour algorithm using hs-cTn is a rapid diagnostic tool endorsed by the European Society of Cardiology to rule out myocardial infarction (MI). However, because its effectiveness in patients with AF remains unclear, in this study we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the 0/1-hour algorithm in patients with and without AF presenting with chest pain in the emergency department.
Methods and results: We conducted a secondary analysis of the DROP-ACS cohort, including 1,333 patients from Japan and Taiwan, with AF in 10.3% of cases. We examined the algorithm's negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and specificity for ruling MI in or out. Patients with AF were more frequently placed in the observe group (54% vs. 34.9%, P<0.05) and less often in the rule-out group (24.1% vs. 44.6%, P<0.05). The NPV and sensitivity for ruling out MI were 100%, while the PPV and specificity were lower in patients with AF (60% and 89.7%, respectively).
Conclusions: The 0/1-hour algorithm effectively ruled out MI in patients with AF, with high safety and accuracy. However, patients with AF are more likely to be stratified into the observe group, requiring further examination for final diagnosis.
期刊介绍:
Circulation publishes original research manuscripts, review articles, and other content related to cardiovascular health and disease, including observational studies, clinical trials, epidemiology, health services and outcomes studies, and advances in basic and translational research.