An observational study in Acute Dyspnea and Acute Heart Failure, sponsored by Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besancon. Completed at 1 site in France. Open to participants aged 75 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-11-18.
Sponsored by Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besancon · Observational
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.
656 studies on the registry are indexed under Dyspnea; 153 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 238 is above the median of 122 across 204 observational studies indexed under Dyspnea.
Browse Dyspnea studies →Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besancon is the lead sponsor of 439 studies on the registry; 97 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
All patients aged ≥75 years admitted to the ED for 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
Exclusion Criteria:
Diagnostic Test: READ-MA Multimarker Approach
Diagnostic Test: READ-MA Multimarker Approach
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.
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
1. 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. 2. 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.
Time frame: 1 day
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
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
Time frame: 1 day
Plan to share: Undecided
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besancon