Cited by 4Acute Myocardial Infarction ResearchClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlEmergency and Acute Care Studies

Can point-of-care high sensitivity troponin improve efficiency: a multisite US study

Open access
Mahler, Simon A., Ashburn, Nicklaus P., Villenthi, Akalya, Pearson, David A., Pugh, Hannah D., Hutchison, Benjamin T., Supples, Michael W., Snavely, Anna C.·2026·The American Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: New point-of-care (POC) high sensitivity troponin (hs-cTn) assays could improve chest pain care efficiency. This study seeks to determine whether implementation of POC hs-cTn reduces key Emergency Department (ED) time metrics. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted at three U.S. EDs (February-September 2025). Adults without STEMI and at least one hs-cTnI ordered were accrued. Blood samples were collected simultaneously for POC hs-cTnI measurement on an i-STAT 1 analyzer (Abbott Laboratories) and central laboratory hs-cTnI measurement (Beckman Coulter). Following POC hs-cTn measures, providers were surveyed regarding potential disposition and treatment decisions which were compared to actual disposition times. Turnaround time, time-to-disposition, and ED length of stay for POC versus central laboratory measures were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: During the study period, 602 patients were accrued, of which 48% (286/602) were female and median age was 60 years (IQR: 50-70). POC hs-cTnI had a median turnaround time of 16 min (IQR: 15-17) compared to 52 min (IQR: 45-61) for the central laboratory, a 36-min difference (p < 0.001). Median time to potential disposition decision using POC was 222 min (IQR: 144-320) versus 273 min (IQR: 219-382) for central laboratory measures, a difference of 51 min (p < 0.001). The median potential ED length of stay was 325 min (IQR: 224-513) for POC versus 387 min (IQR: 276-564) for the central laboratory, yielding a potential reduction of 62 min (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: POC hs-cTnI measurement reduced turnaround time and produced substantive potential reductions in time-to-disposition decision and ED length of stay. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT06899776.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajem.2026.08.035

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mahler, S. A., Ashburn, N. P., Villenthi, A., Pearson, D. A., Pugh, H. D., Hutchison, B. T., Supples, M. W., & Snavely, A. C.
Affiliations
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • Carolinas Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Mahler, Simon A.
Venue
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-12
Volume
110
Pages
167-172
ISSN
0735-6757 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7203786992
Cited by
4
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
20.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The American Journal of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Abbott Laboratories Inc
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
Keywords
point-of-care testing, high-sensitivity troponin I, emergency department efficiency, turnaround time, time to disposition, emergency department length of stay, chest pain, central laboratory comparison, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review