Evidence Hub

Validation of the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-hour algorithm for chest pain triage in Asian emergency departments: a multinational stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

Inoue K, Twerenbold R, Kasim S, Mohd Salleh F, Mohamed AS, Tan JWC, Lim XY, Ping TB et al.

Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2026

3,869 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

Background: Rapid triage of patients presenting with chest pain is essential for early diagnosis and safe disposition. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-hour hs-cTn algorithm has shown promising performance in Western cohorts, but evidence supporting its implementation in diverse Asian emergency department (ED) settings remains limited. Therefore, we evaluated the safety and clinical utility of the ESC 0/1-hour algorithm for chest pain triage across multiple Asian EDs.

Methods: This was a prospective, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial conducted across 12 hospitals in five Asian countries, enrolling 3869 patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome without ST elevation (NSTE-ACS). Usual care involved troponin testing without standardised timing, whereas the 0/1-hour protocol followed ESC recommendations using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T testing at baseline and 1 hour. The primary endpoint was 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI) and unplanned revascularisation. Non-inferiority was assessed using a one-sided 95% CI with a margin of 1.5%.

Results: Of 3869 patients (2059 usual care; 1810 0/1-hour care), MACE occurred in 1.7% of usual care patients and 1.4% in the 0/1-hour care (upper one-sided 95% CI -0.3%), confirming non-inferiority. ED discharge rates were significantly higher with the 0/1-hour algorithm (60% vs 35%, p<0.001). Among 941 patients classified as low risk group, MACE…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 3,869 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free