Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 173

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

0/1-Hour Triage Algorithm for Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Renal Dysfunction

Open access
Twerenbold, Raphael, Badertscher, Patrick, Boeddinghaus, Jasper, Nestelberger, Thomas, Wildi, Karin, Puelacher, Christian, Sabti, Zaid, Rubini Gimenez, Maria, Tschirky, Sandra, du Fay de Lavallaz, Jeanne, Kozhuharov, Nikola, Sazgary, Lorraine, Mueller, Deborah, Breidthardt, Tobias, Strebel, Ivo, Flores Widmer, Dayana, Shrestha, Samyut, Miró, Òscar, Martín-Sánchez, F. Javier, Morawiec, Beata, Parenica, Jiri, Geigy, Nicolas, Keller, Dagmar I., Rentsch, Katharina, von Eckardstein, Arnold, Osswald, Stefan, Reichlin, Tobias, Mueller, Christian·2018·Circulation

Abstract

Background: The European Society of Cardiology recommends a 0/1-hour algorithm for rapid rule-out and rule-in of non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) concentrations irrespective of renal function. Because patients with renal dysfunction (RD) frequently present with increased hs-cTn concentrations even in the absence of non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, concern has been raised regarding the performance of the 0/1-hour algorithm in RD. Methods: In a prospective multicenter diagnostic study enrolling unselected patients presenting with suspected non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to the emergency department, we assessed the diagnostic performance of the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-hour algorithm using hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI in patients with RD, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , and compared it to patients with normal renal function. The final diagnosis was centrally adjudicated by 2 independent cardiologists using all available information, including cardiac imaging. Safety was quantified as sensitivity in the rule-out zone, accuracy as the specificity in the rule-in zone, and efficacy as the proportion of the overall cohort assigned to either rule-out or rule-in based on the 0- and 1-hour sample. Results: Among 3254 patients, RD was present in 487 patients (15%). The prevalence of non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction was substantially higher in patients with RD compared with patients with normal renal function (31% versus 13%, P <0.001). Using hs-cTnT, patients with RD had comparable sensitivity of rule-out (100.0% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 97.6–100.0] versus 99.2% [95% CI, 97.6–99.8]; P =0.559), lower specificity of rule-in (88.7% [95% CI, 84.8–91.9] versus 96.5% [95% CI, 95.7–97.2]; P <0.001), and lower overall efficacy (51% versus 81%, P <0.001), mainly driven by a much lower percentage of patients eligible for rule-out (18% versus 68%, P <0.001) compared with patients with normal renal function. Using hs-cTnI, patients with RD had comparable sensitivity of rule-out (98.6% [95% CI, 95.0–99.8] versus 98.5% [95% CI, 96.5–99.5]; P =1.0), lower specificity of rule-in (84.4% [95% CI, 79.9–88.3] versus 91.7% [95% CI, 90.5–92.9]; P <0.001), and lower overall efficacy (54% versus 76%, P <0.001; proportion ruled out, 18% versus 58%, P <0.001) compared with patients with normal renal function. Conclusions: In patients with RD, the safety of the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-hour algorithm is high, but specificity of rule-in and overall efficacy are decreased. Modifications of the rule-in and rule-out thresholds did not improve the safety or overall efficacy of the 0/1-hour algorithm. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00470587.

Overview

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.117.028901

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 173

Metadata

Authors
Twerenbold, R., Badertscher, P., Boeddinghaus, J., Nestelberger, T., Wildi, K., Puelacher, C., Sabti, Z., Rubini Gimenez, M., Tschirky, S., du Fay de Lavallaz, J., Kozhuharov, N., Sazgary, L., Mueller, D., Breidthardt, T., Strebel, I., Flores Widmer, D., Shrestha, S., Miró, Ò., Martín-Sánchez, F. J., Morawiec, B., Parenica, J., Geigy, N., Keller, D. I., Rentsch, K., von Eckardstein, A., Osswald, S., Reichlin, T., & Mueller, C.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2018-01-30
Volume
137
Issue
5
Pages
436-451
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2766202507
Cited by
173
References
6
FWCI
8.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: 0/1-Hour Triage Algorithm for Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Renal Dysfunction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.117.028901
The paper
Twerenbold, R., Badertscher, P., Boeddinghaus, J., Nestelberger, T., Wildi, K., Puelacher, C., Sabti, Z., Rubini Gimenez, M., Tschirky, S., du Fay de Lavallaz, J., Kozhuharov, N., Sazgary, L., Mueller, D., Breidthardt, T., Strebel, I., Flores Widmer, D., Shrestha, S., Miró, Ò., Martín-Sánchez, F. J., . . . Mueller, C. (2018). 0/1-Hour Triage Algorithm for Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Renal Dysfunction. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.117.028901

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.