4.6 Article

Cardiac Troponin I in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous and Surgical Myocardial Revascularization: Comparison of Analytical Methods

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13071316

Keywords

troponin; CKMB; myocardial revascularization; biomarkers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to establish the cutoff values and the accuracy of three different cTnI kits in the diagnosis of post-procedural MI. Low accuracy was observed after applying the current guidelines recommendations, but the accuracies of the three cTnI assays improved when adjusted by the new ROC cutoffs.
The myocardial infarction (MI) types 4a and 5 guidelines recommend cardiac troponin (cTn) diagnostic decision limits of 5 and 10 times the 99th percentile, respectively. Different cTn kits elicit different responses, so the MI diagnosis is still challenging. The study aimed to establish the cutoff values and the accuracy of three different cTnI kits in the diagnosis of post-procedural MI. We analyzed 115 patients with multivessel stable chronic coronary artery disease; 26 underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, and 89 underwent coronary artery bypass graft. Delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging was performed before and after each intervention for definitive MI diagnoses. Two contemporary and one high-sensitivity cTnI immunoassays were used. ROC curves determined the accuracy of each assay. Low accuracy was observed after applying the current guidelines recommendations. The three cTnI assays accuracies improved when adjusted by the new ROC cutoffs, reaching 82% for MI type 5 for all assays, and 78%, 88%, and 87% for MI type 4 for Siemens, Beckman, and Abbott, respectively. The ultrasensitive and contemporary tests' accuracy for MI types 4a and 5 diagnoses are equivalent when adjusted for these new cutoffs. The hs-cTnI assays had lower accuracy than contemporary tests for MI types 4a and 5 diagnoses.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available