Evidence Hub

Biomarker strategies: the diagnostic and management process of patients with suspected AMI.

Möckel M, Slagman A, Searle J

Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany), 2016

Abstract

Security standards of our times largely exclude a discharge of patients with chest pain from the emergency departments (EDs) based on clinical assessment alone. Given the increasing use and consequently crowding of EDs worldwide and the large proportion of patients who present to the EDs with, however vague, signs and symptoms of acute coronary syndrome, there is a strong clinical and public health need to achieve a faster but safe rule-in and rule-out of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to direct patients onto the correct management pathway. A number of approaches for a faster rule-in and rule-out of AMI are currently under research and evaluation and some have already been integrated into current guidelines and/or implemented into the clinical routine in selected centers. This article summarizes these different diagnostic strategies for patients with suspected AMI, using cardiac troponin alone or in combination with copeptin.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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