Article

Analytical Validation of a High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T Assay

Medizinische Klinik, Abteilung für Innere Medizin III, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Germany.
Clinical Chemistry (Impact Factor: 7.77). 12/2009; 56(2):254-61. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2009.132654
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We report the development of a novel high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) assay, a modification of the Roche fourth-generation cTnT assay, and validation of the analytical performance of this assay.
Validation included testing of analytical sensitivity, specificity, interferences, and precision. We established the 99th percentile cutoff from healthy reference populations (n = 616). In addition, we studied differences in time to a positive result when using serial measurements of hs-cTnT vs cTnT in patients with a confirmed diagnosis of non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (non-STEMI).
The hs-cTnT assay had an analytical range from 3 to 10 000 ng/L. At the 99th percentile value of 13.5 ng/L, the CV was 9% using the Elecsys 2010 analyzer. The assay was specific for cTnT without interferences from human cTnI or cTnC, skeletal muscle TnT, or hemoglobin concentrations up to 1000 mg/L, above which falsely lower values would be expected. When the assay was evaluated clinically, a hs-cTnT higher than the 99th percentile concentration identified a significantly higher number of patients with non-STEMI on presentation (45 vs 20 patients, P = 0.0004) compared with cTnT, and a final diagnosis of non-STEMI was made in 9 additional patients (55 vs 46 patients, P = 0.23) after serial sampling. Time to diagnosis was significantly shorter using hs-cTnT compared with cTnT [mean 71.5 (SD 108.7) min vs 246.9 (82.0) min, respectively; P < 0.01].
The analytical performance of hs-cTnT complies with the ESC-ACCF-AHA-WHF Global Task Force recommendations for use in the diagnosis of MI.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
180 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in the general population. Cardiac troponin I (cTnI) can be elevated in patients with AF without coexisting coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of this study was to characterize the diagnostic accuracy and clinical usefulness of a cTnI assay for the diagnosis of CAD in patients with AF. Patients with AF undergoing coronary angiography were included in the study. The workflow chart encompassed measuring of cTnI in all patients at admission and after 6 h. Patients with CAD were older (73.8 ± 7.6 vs. 65.3 ± 12.9 years) than patients without CAD; for all other characteristics, no significant differences were observed. Of the patients, 39 had CAD [12 patients one-vessel disease (VD), 14 patients 2-VD, 13 patients 3-VD] and 16 patients had acute myocardial infarction and were undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. There was no significant difference in cTnI concentrations between patients without and with CAD at admission (0.02 vs. 0.03 ng/ml, respectively); however, a difference was noted after 6 h (0.03 vs. 0.06 ng/ml, respectively). AF patients both without and with CAD showed similar cTnI concentrations at admission. A second validation of cTnI is mandatory for all patients.
    Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie 02/2015; DOI:10.1007/s00399-015-0348-8
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Absolute changes in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) seem to have higher diagnostic accuracy in the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction compared with relative changes. It is unknown whether the same applies to high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) assays and whether the combination of absolute and relative change might further increase accuracy.Methods In a prospective, international multicenter study, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) was measured with 3 novel assays (hs-cTnT, Roche Diagnostics Corp, Indianapolis, Ind; hs-cTnI, Beckman Coulter Inc, Brea, Calif; hs-cTnI, Siemens, Munich, Germany) in a blinded fashion at presentation and after 1 and 2 hours in a blinded fashion in 830 unselected patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. The final diagnosis was adjudicated by 2 independent cardiologists.ResultsThe area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction was significantly higher for 1- and 2-hour absolute versus relative hs-cTn changes for all 3 assays (P < .001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the combination of 2-hour absolute and relative change (hs-cTnT 0.98 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.97-0.99]; hs-cTnI, Beckman Coulter Inc, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.96-0.99]; hs-cTnI, Siemens, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.93-0.99]) were high and provided some benefit compared with the use of absolute change alone for hs-cTnT, but not for the hs-cTnI assays. Reclassification analysis confirmed the superiority of absolute changes versus relative changes.Conclusions Absolute changes seem to be the preferred metrics for both hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI in the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. The combination of absolute and relative changes provides a small added value for hs-cTnT, but not for hs-cTnI.
    The American Journal of Medicine 09/2013; 126(9):781-788.e2. DOI:10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.02.031 · 5.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To obtain summary estimates of the accuracy of a single baseline measurement of the Elecsys Troponin T high-sensitive assay (Roche Diagnostics) for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting to the emergency department. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Medline, Embase, and other relevant electronic databases were searched for papers published between January 2006 and December 2013. Studies were included if they evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a single baseline measurement of Elecsys Troponin T high-sensitive assay for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected acute coronary syndrome. The first author screened all titles and abstracts identified through the searches and selected all potentially relevant papers. The screening of the full texts, the data extraction, and the methodological quality assessment, using the adapted QUADAS-2 tool, were conducted independently by two reviewers with disagreements being resolved through discussion or arbitration. If appropriate, meta-analysis was conducted using the hierarchical bivariate model. Twenty three studies reported the performance of the evaluated assay at presentation. The results for 14 ng/L and 3-5 ng/L cut-off values were pooled separately. At 14 ng/L (20 papers), the summary sensitivity was 89.5% (95% confidence interval 86.3% to 92.1%) and the summary specificity was 77.1% (68.7% to 83.7%). At 3-5 ng/L (six papers), the summary sensitivity was 97.4% (94.9% to 98.7%) and the summary specificity was 42.4% (31.2% to 54.5%). This means that if 21 of 100 consecutive patients have the target condition (21%, the median prevalence across the studies), 2 (95% confidence interval 2 to 3) of 21 patients with acute myocardial infarction will be missed (false negatives) if 14 ng/L is used as a cut-off value and 18 (13 to 25) of 79 patients without acute myocardial infarction will test positive (false positives). If the 3-5 ng/L cut-off value is used, <1 (0 to 1) patient with acute myocardial infarction will be missed and 46 (36 to 54) patients without acute myocardial infarction will test positive. The results indicate that a single baseline measurement of the Elecsys Troponin T high-sensitive assay could be used to rule out acute myocardial infarction if lower cut-off values such as 3 ng/L or 5 ng/L are used. However, this method should be part of a comprehensive triage strategy and may not be appropriate for patients who present less than three hours after symptom onset. Care must also be exercised because of the higher imprecision of the evaluated assay and the greater effect of lot-to-lot reagent variation at low troponin concentrations. PROSPERO registration number CRD42013003926. © Zhelev et al 2015.
    BMJ Clinical Research 01/2015; 350:h15. DOI:10.1136/bmj.h15 · 14.09 Impact Factor