Evaluating possible acute coronary syndrome in primary care: the value of signs, symptoms, and plasma heart-type fatty acid-binding protein (H-FABP). A diagnostic study

Utilization of point-of-care tests among general practitioners, a cross-sectional study

Background

Point-of-care testing (POCT) has numerous potential benefits to improve health care service, especially in resource-limited settings. We aim to identify which POC-tests (POCTs) of laboratory parameters are known, employed, and rated as useful by general practitioners (GPs).

Methods

A questionnaire with 27 POCTs was posted to a random selection of GPs (n = 451) in Saxony, Germany.

Results

A total of 208 GPs replied (response rate 46.1%). Out of 27 POCTs, each GP knew an average of 20.3 as laboratory parameters and 9.2 as POCTs. Urine test strips (99.0%), blood glucose test (98.1%), and Troponin I/T (86.4%) were the best-known, followed by INR/Quick (82.5%), Microalbumin (79.1%), and D-dimer (78.6%) POCTs. Yet, solely 0 to 13 POC tests were actually used (mean value 4.6). Urine test strips were employed most frequently (97.6%), followed by blood glucose test (94.7%), Troponin I/T (57.8%), Microalbumin (57.3%), and INR/Quick POCTs (41.7%). Heart fatty binding protein (H-FABP), Syphilis, Coeliac disease, and Malaria appeared as the least frequently used POCTs. The majority of the GPs declared 14 of the 27 POCTs to be useful.

Discussion/conclusion

The most recurrently employed POCTs are those for diagnosing or monitoring diabetes mellitus, ensued by POCTs addressing acute cardiovascular diseases (Troponin I/T, D-dimer) or monitoring the therapy of infectious diseases or the anticoagulant therapy. POCTs most often rated as useful by GPs are also widely known and frequently used. Nonetheless, the majority of GPs rate only a very limited number of POCTs as useful. Frequent concerns might be low economic benefit, over-reliance, and test accuracy coming along with the complex implementation of the tests requiring technical skills, accurate storage, and the correct interpretation of test results.

Trial registration

In accordance with the (Model) Professional Code for Physicians in Germany, neither human body materials nor data that can be assigned to a specific human being are used in our study. A declaration of no objection from the Ethics Committee of the Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (Medical Faculty) confirms no professional or ethical concerns due to completely anonymized data collection and analysis. Our study was therefore not registered in a corresponding registry.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01643-9.

Prehospital risk assessment in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To review, inventory and compare available diagnostic tools and investigate which tool has the best performance for prehospital risk assessment in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medline and Embase were searched up till 1 April 2021. Prospective studies with patients, suspected of NSTE-ACS, presenting in the primary care setting or by emergency medical services (EMS) were included. The most important exclusion criteria were studies including only patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and studies before 1995, the pretroponin era. The primary end point was the final hospital discharge diagnosis of NSTE-ACS or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 6 weeks. Risk of bias was evaluated by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio of findings for risk stratification in patients suspected of NSTE-ACS.

RESULTS

In total, 15 prospective studies were included; these studies reflected in total 26 083 patients. No specific variables related to symptoms, physical examination or risk factors were useful in risk stratification for NSTE-ACS diagnosis. The most useful electrocardiographic finding was ST-segment depression (LR+3.85 (95% CI 2.58 to 5.76)). Point-of-care troponin was found to be a strong predictor for NSTE-ACS in primary care (LR+14.16 (95% CI 4.28 to 46.90) and EMS setting (LR+6.16 (95% CI 5.02 to 7.57)). Combined risk scores were the best for risk assessment in an NSTE-ACS. From the combined risk scores that can be used immediately in a prehospital setting, the PreHEART score, a validated combined risk score for prehospital use, derived from the HEART score (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin), was most useful for risk stratification in patients with NSTE-ACS (LR+8.19 (95% CI 5.47 to 12.26)) and for identifying patients without ACS (LR-0.05 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.15)).

DISCUSSION

Important study limitations were verification bias and heterogeneity between studies. In the prehospital setting, several diagnostic tools have been reported which could improve risk stratification, triage and early treatment in patients suspected for NSTE-ACS. On-site assessment of troponin and combined risk scores derived from the HEART score are strong predictors. These results support further studies to investigate the impact of these new tools on logistics and clinical outcome.

FUNDING

This study is funded by ZonMw, the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This meta-analysis was published for registration in PROSPERO prior to starting (CRD York, CRD42021254122).

Biomarker Development in Cardiology: Reviewing the Past to Inform the Future

Cardiac biomarkers have become pivotal to the clinical practice of cardiology, but there remains much to discover that could benefit cardiology patients. We review the discovery of key protein biomarkers in the fields of acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and atherosclerosis, giving an overview of the populations they were studied in and the statistics that were used to validate them. We review statistical approaches that are currently in use to assess new biomarkers and overview a framework for biomarker discovery and evaluation that could be incorporated into clinical trials to evaluate cardiovascular outcomes in the future.