4.7 Article

Sex-Specific 99th Percentile Upper Reference Limits for High Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin Assays Derived Using a Universal Sample Bank

Journal

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 66, Issue 3, Pages 434-444

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/hvz029

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: How to select healthy reference subjects in deriving 99th percentiles for cardiac troponin assays still needs to be clarified. To assist with global implementation of high sensitivity (hs)-cardiac troponin (cTn) I and hs-cTnT assays in clinical practice, we determined overall and sex-specific 99th percentiles in 9 hs-cTnI and 3 hs-cTnT assays using a universal sample bank (USB). METHODS: The Universal Sample Bank (USB) comprised healthy subjects, 426 men and 417 women, screened using a health questionnaire. Hemoglobin A1c (>URL 6.5%), NT-proBNP (>URL 125 ng/L) and eGFR (<60mL/min), were used as surrogate biomarker exclusion criteria along with statin use. 99th percentiles were determined by nonparametric, Harrell-Davis bootstrap, and robust methods. RESULTS: Subjects were ages 19 to 91 years, Caucasian 58%, African American 27%, Pacific Islander/Asian 11%, other 4%, Hispanic 8%, and non-Hispanic 92%. The overall and sex-specific 99th percentiles for all assays, before and after exclusions (n = 694), were influenced by the statistical method used, with substantial differences noted between and within both hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT assays. Men had higher 99th percentiles (ng/L) than women. The Roche cTnT and Beckman and Abbott cTnI assays (after exclusions) did not measure cTn values at >= the limit of detection in >= 50% women. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings have important clinical implications in that sex-specific 99th percentiles varied according to the statistical method and hs-cTn assay used, not all assays provided a high enough percentage of measurable concentrations in women to qualify as a hs-assay, and the surrogate exclusion criteria used to define normality tended to lower the 99th percentiles.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available