Back

Validation of the ESC 0/3h-Algorithm with a Novel High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin I Assay in Patients with Suspected Myocardial Infarction

Durak, K.; Lopez-Ayala, P.; Koechlin, L.; Boeddinghaus, J.; Strebel, I.; Messingschlager, S.; Champetier, A.; Kaplan, E.; Herraiz-Recuenco, L.; Miro, O.; Christ, M.; Keller, D. I.; Martin-Sanchez, F. J.; Morawiec, B.; Parenica, J.; Hure, G.; Freihofer, T. J.; Wildi, K.; Bima, P.; Crisanti, L.; Stolte, T.; Potlukova, E.; Gualandro, D. M.; Mahfoud, F.; Mueller, C.

2026-02-24 emergency medicine
10.64898/2026.02.10.26346042 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThere is uncertainty among physicians regarding the optimal clinical application of the novel high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI)-VITROS assay within the widely implemented upper reference limit (URL)-based ESC 0/3h-algorithm. MethodsThis prospective, international, multicenter study aimed to validate and compare different modifications of the URL-based ESC 0/3h-algorithm among adult patients presenting with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to the emergency department. Final diagnoses of AMI were centrally adjudicated by two independent cardiologists, blinded to hs-cTnI-VITROS concentrations. Discrimination was compared to the best validated hs-cTnT/I-assays. Clinical follow-up for cardiovascular death and AMI was conducted until five years. ResultsAmong 1225 eligible patients (median age 63 years (IQR 52-75), 31.9% women), 18.9% were adjudicated as NSTEMI. Diagnostic discrimination of hs-cTnI-VITROS at 0h was very high (AUC 0.949, 95% CI 0.941-0.958), and comparable to hs-cTnI-Architect and hs-cTnT-Elecsys. Using the ESC 0/3h algorithm, 30.9% of patients were classified as rule-out (sensitivity 99.1%, NPV 99.5%) and 19.0% as rule-in (specificity 96.0%, PPV 82.8%). Substituting the HEART score for the GRACE score increased rule-out efficacy to 43.9%, while maintaining very high safety (sensitivity 99.6%; NPV 99.8%). Findings were consistent across predefined subgroups, in sensitivity analyses restricted to type 1 NSTEMI, using the 2h study blood sample (n=2249), and for the composite of cardiovascular death or AMI during five-year follow-up. ConclusionsThe ESC 0/3h-algorithm demonstrated excellent performance for rule-out of NSTEMI with greater efficacy when combined with the HEART-instead of the GRACE score. Registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00470587 Clinical PerspectiveO_ST_ABSWhat Is New?C_ST_ABSO_LIIn a prospective, international multicenter cohort, the URL-based ESC 0/3h algorithm using the FDA-cleared hs-cTnI-VITROS assay achieved very high rule-out safety (sensitivity 99.1%, NPV 99.5%) but limited efficacy (30.9% rule-out) when combined with GRACE score <140 and symptom resolution. C_LIO_LIReplacing GRACE with a HEART score (<5) increased rule-out efficacy to 43.9% while maintaining excellent safety (sensitivity 99.6%, NPV 99.8%), with consistent findings across subgroups, sensitivity analyses, and long-term outcomes. C_LI What Are the Clinical Implications?O_LIClinicians and health systems using hs-cTnI-VITROS can apply the ESC 0/3h algorithm with assay-conform decision values; adding clinical risk stratification is necessary to meet contemporary rule-out safety targets. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.6%
2
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
8.8%
3
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
4
Stroke
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
5
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.8%
6
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.8%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.9%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.7%
9
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
10
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.7%
11
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 48%
2.2%
13
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
14
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
15
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
16
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
17
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.6%
18
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
19
European Heart Journal
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
20
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
21
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
25
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
26
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
27
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
28
Hypertension
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
29
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
30
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%