We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
5th generation cardiac troponin I and T assays in clinical routine - A head-to-head comparison with data from the Linz troponin (LITROP) study.
BACKGROUND: In Europe, clinicians use so called high-sensitivity assays for the measurement of cardiac troponin I and T (i.e., hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT assays, also termed 5th generation assays) since several years. We aimed at performing a head-to-head comparison of two 5th generation assays in "real life use".
METHODS: We studied 3588 consecutive patients presenting to an emergency department. We used both, a hs-cTnI assay from Abbott and a hs-cTnT assay from Roche in clinical routine. We assessed (1) the capabilities of hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT for the prediction of 3.7 year all-cause mortality; (2) discordant diagnoses of myocardial injury by hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT according to the European gender-neutral 99th percentile upper reference limits (i.e., 26 ng/L and 14 ng/L, respectively); and (3) analyte kinetics in patient with serial troponin measurements.
RESULTS: With respect to prognosis of all-cause mortality, the AUC of hs-cTnI was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.80-0.82), and the AUC of hs-cTnT was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.84-0.86). With respect to discordant diagnoses, 21% of the 3588 patients were classified as having myocardial injury by hs-cTnT but not by hs-cTnI, and < 1% were classified as having myocardial injury by hs-cTnI but not by hs-cTnT. In the patients with serial blood sampling, the median delta values were 6.3 ng/L and 25% for hs-cTnI, and 4.2 ng/L and 16% for hs-cTnT.
CONCLUSION: We found different characteristics of the Abbott hs-cTnI and the Roche hs-cTnT assays, especially when using the European gender-neutral 99th percentile upper reference limits. Clinically, these different characteristics are related to discordant results in the diagnosis and prognosis of patients presenting to an emergency department.
METHODS: We studied 3588 consecutive patients presenting to an emergency department. We used both, a hs-cTnI assay from Abbott and a hs-cTnT assay from Roche in clinical routine. We assessed (1) the capabilities of hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT for the prediction of 3.7 year all-cause mortality; (2) discordant diagnoses of myocardial injury by hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT according to the European gender-neutral 99th percentile upper reference limits (i.e., 26 ng/L and 14 ng/L, respectively); and (3) analyte kinetics in patient with serial troponin measurements.
RESULTS: With respect to prognosis of all-cause mortality, the AUC of hs-cTnI was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.80-0.82), and the AUC of hs-cTnT was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.84-0.86). With respect to discordant diagnoses, 21% of the 3588 patients were classified as having myocardial injury by hs-cTnT but not by hs-cTnI, and < 1% were classified as having myocardial injury by hs-cTnI but not by hs-cTnT. In the patients with serial blood sampling, the median delta values were 6.3 ng/L and 25% for hs-cTnI, and 4.2 ng/L and 16% for hs-cTnT.
CONCLUSION: We found different characteristics of the Abbott hs-cTnI and the Roche hs-cTnT assays, especially when using the European gender-neutral 99th percentile upper reference limits. Clinically, these different characteristics are related to discordant results in the diagnosis and prognosis of patients presenting to an emergency department.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app