Incremental Value of Point of Care H-FABP Testing in Primary Care Patients Suspected of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Overview

Rationale: Thoracic complaints, possibly due to a cardiac ischemic cause are a diagnostic challenge in general practice. When an underlying ischemic cardiac condition (AMI (acute myocardial infarction), UAP (unstable angina pectoris)) is considered, referral from general practitioner (GP) to a cardiologist has to take place. However, cardiac analysis in 80% of referred patients is negative. To optimize referral decisions of GPs, new and fast diagnostics are needed. Objective: To assess the incremental diagnostic value for AMI of a novel rapid PoC H-FABP-test in addition to history taking and physical examination in patients presenting in daily general practice with possible AMI. In addition the cost-effectiveness of the test will be evaluated. Study design: Delayed type cross-sectional diagnostic study. Study population: Patients presenting to the GP with any new-onset chest complaint, at time of presentation not lasting for more than 24 hours, that is considered to be of possible cardiac origin by the GP. Intervention: Point of care Heart Type Fatty Acid Binding Protein test (PoC H-FABP-test), added to usual care. PoC H-FABP-testing, by qualitatively measuring H-FABP in one single drop of blood obtained by finger prick, is added to normal procedures of consultation and referral decision by the GP. Main study parameters / endpoints: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of point of care H-FABP-testing for AMI, alone as well as part of a clinical diagnostic algorithm, in patients with thoracic complaints in general practice. All outcome measures, based on using an algorithm and/or point of care H-FABP-testing, will be compared to regular diagnostic assessment by the GP without using an algorithm and/or point of care H-FABP-testing. Therefore, incremental value of H-FABP-testing and/or a diagnostic algorithm is measured. Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness: Individual participants will experience low risk, since study participation comprehends regular care except for an extra finger prick and possibly collection of one extra venous blood sample. For this low amount of disadvantage, the participant will experience no advantage either. However, results of the study will possibly be useful for similar patients in future.