4.2 Article

Performance of the AQT90 FLEX cTnI Point-Of-Care Assay for the Rapid Diagnosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Emergency Room

Journal

CLINICAL LABORATORY
Volume 60, Issue 6, Pages 903-908

Publisher

CLIN LAB PUBL
DOI: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2013.130426

Keywords

angina pectoris; biological markers; humans; troponin; sensitivity and specificity; myocardial infarction

Funding

  1. Radiometer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: International guidelines stipulate that primarily cardiac troponin (cTn) assays with a coefficient of variation (CV) <= 10% at the 99th percentile cutoff should be used for diagnosing myocardial infarction. Point-of-care (POC) assays usually do not meet these criteria. Here, we sought to confirm the manufacturer-recommended 99th percentile cutoff and CV of the POC assay AQT90 FLEX cTnI. Methods: 119 healthy persons without cardiac disorders were examined to determine the 99th percentile cutoff and the corresponding CV. This cutoff was validated in a cohort of 80 patients with unstable angina and 71 patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), who were admitted to a chest pain unit. cTnI concentrations were measured in serial serum samples obtained from these patients at presentation, 3 and 6 hours after admission. Results: A cTnI concentration of 20 ng/L was found as the 99th percentile cutoff (CV 6.7%). cTnI was >= 20 ng/L in 51 (75%), 59 (87%), and 60 (88%) of the NSTEMI patients 0, 3 and 6 hours after admission, respectively. At admission, sensitivity was 76% and specificity 95%. Three and six hours later, sensitivity and negative predictive values increased to 88% and 98.8%, and to 92% and 97%, respectively. Conclusions: We confirmed the manufacturer recommended 99th percentile cutoff of 23 ng/L and established a CV of 6.7% at 20 ng/L. These results demonstrated that the POC assay AQT90 FLEX cTnI must be classified as guideline acceptable.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available