Multimarker Approach for Acute Dyspnea in Elderly Patients Admitted in the Emergency Department

Elderly people constitute the largest proportion of emergency department (ED) patients, representing 12% of all ED admissions. The need for diagnostic tests or therapeutic interventions is much greater in this patient population. Cardiovascular diseases and symptoms represent 12% of the causes for ED admission, and patients suffering from cardiovascular disease are those whose ED visit lasts longest.

The diagnostic approach in the ED in elderly patients admitted for acute dypsnoea is complex, and early identification of acute left-sided heart failure (ALSHF) is vital as it has an impact on prognosis. The clinical signs are difficult to interpret, and are non-specific, particularly at the acute phase and in elderly or obese patients. Indeed, some authors have reported up to 50% of diagnostic errors in elderly patients.

Measure of the blood concentration of a natriuretic peptide allows a quick diagnosis. However, peptides alone suffer from several limitations, particularly in situations that are often encountered in elderly patients, such as sepsis, renal failure, acute coronary syndrome, pulmonary embolism, chronic respiratory failure, atrial fibrillation and high body mass index. Diagnostic performance deteriorates with increasing age, and there is a significant increase in this grey-zone in patients aged ≥75 years. In critical situations in elderly patients, assessment of natriuretic peptides serve mainly to rule out a diagnosis of left heart failure.

Some authors have studied other biomarkers showing their performance in the diagnosis of ALSHF. These are biomarkers involved in remodeling and myocardial fibrosis (ST2, Galectin-3) or involved in myocardial injury (High-sensitivity Troponin-I).

Therefore, a combined "multimarker" approach could improve the diagnostic performance of ALSHF.

READ (NCT02531542) is a diagnostic study including patients over the age of 75 admitted to acute dyspnea in the ED, to demonstrate the superiority of an ultrasound protocol (the READ protocol) on NT-proBNP in the ALSHF diagnosis.

The hypothesis is that the diagnostic accuracy of a multimarker diagnostic approach, namely the READ-MA method, combining NT-proBNP, High-sensitivity Troponin-I, ST2 and Galectin-3 would be superior to that of NT-proBNP assessment for the diagnosis of ALSHF in elderly patients (≥75 years) admitted to the ED.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Acute Dyspnea Acute Heart Failure

Age range

75 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Observational

Primary location

Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besançon

Besançon, Franche-Comté, 25000, France

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

Admission to the Emergency Department with age ≥ 75 years
AND criteria of acute dyspnea :

Breathe rate ≥ 25 cycles/minute or PaO2 ≤ 70 mmHg or SpO2 ≤ 92% in room air or PacO2 ≥ 45 mmHg and pH ≤ 7.35

AND Electrocardiogram in sinus rhythm or in atrial fibrillation at admission

Exclusion criteria

none

Treatment and study plan

READ-MA Multimarker Approach

Diagnostic Test

The presence or absence of ALSHF (gold standard used in the READ study) : diagnosis by 2 experts (cardiologist and emergency physician) based on data collected in the ED and during hospitalization (clinical examination, history, usual treatment, haemodynamic parameters, ECG, chest X-ray, emergency treatment, clinical and paraclinical results during hospitalization), biological assays (except NT-proBNP) and echocardiography (Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction, segmental kinetic, potential valvulopathy, transmitral flow, tissue doppler E' velocity) performed by a cardiologist within 24 hours of admission.

Primary outcomes

To assess the diagnostic performance of the multimarker approach (combining NT-proBNP, High-sensitivity Troponin-I, ST2 and Galectin-3) for the diagnosis of ALSHF in patients aged ≥75 years admitted to the ED for acute dyspnea

Time frame: 1 day
- The presence or absence of ALSHF (gold standard used in the READ study) : diagnosis by 2 experts (cardiologist and emergency physician) based on data collected in the ED and during hospitalization, biological assays (except NT-proBNP) and echocardiography performed by a cardiologist.
- The positivity of the evaluated test (multi-marker approach) :
- For NT-proBNP, the threshold for positivity is higher than 1800 pg/mL. There is no consensus for High-Sensitivity Troponin-I, ST2 and Galectin-3. Firstly, the optimal threshold of each of these 3 biomarkers will be assessed by ROC curve, then the best combination between these 4 biomarkers will be tested to obtain an optimal discrimination (sensitivity, specificity positive and negative predictive values), positive and negative likelihood ratios) using various methods.

Secondary outcomes

To demonstrate the superiority of the multimarker approach (NT-proBNP, High-sensitivity Troponin-I, ST2 and Galectin-3) over NT-proBNP alone for the diagnosis of ALSHF in patients aged ≥75 years admitted to the ED for acute dyspnea

Time frame: 1 day
To demonstrate the superiority of this combined multi-marker approach combining NT-proBNP, Troponin-I ultrasensitive, ST-2 and Galectin-3 on NT-proBNP alone in the diagnosis of ALSHF in subjects over 75 years admitted to emergencies for acute dyspnea, will be evaluated :
- The presence or absence of acute left heart failure (gold standard selected in the context of the READ study) will be determined using the previously defined criteria
- The evaluated test will be the best multimarker approach previously determined, classified as positive or negative using the previously defined criteria
- The comparative test (NT-proBNP alone) will be classified positive for a threshold higher than 1800 pg/mL

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besancon

Other

Registry information

Acronym: READ-MA

Important dates

Study start: 2016
Primary completion: 2020
Study completion: 2022
First posted: Jan 27, 2020
Registry last updated: Nov 18, 2024

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.

Completed