4.5 Article

Age-specific reference values for the 5th generation cardiac troponin T assay in Chinese children

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 101, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029101

关键词

age-specific reference limits; cardiac troponin T; pediatric cardiology; the 99th percentile URL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the normative values of cTnT in Chinese children and reported the age-specific 99th percentile cut-off values. The results have significant clinical implications in the interpretation and use of test results for pediatric cardiology.
The clinical use of the cardiac troponin T (cTnT) assay was limited to the adult population in the diagnosis and prognosis of myocardial injury. However, emerging studies indicated its significant value in the assessment of pediatric cardiology, and it has been routinely measured in most hospitals. Our study investigated the normative values of cTnT in Chinese children and reported the age-specific 99th percentile cut-off for them. A total of 1280 apparently healthy Chinese children were enrolled in our study. Serum levels of cTnT were analyzed on the Roche Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT assay. According to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute C28-A3 guideline, the 99th percentile upper reference limits (URLs) with 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in different age subgroups. The 99th percentile URL was 38 (90%CI: 37.0-51.0) ng/L for 1 to <4months old, 26 (90%CI: 25.2-28.5) ng/L for 4 to <= 12months old, and 12 (90%CI: 11.1-12.9) ng/L for 1 to 18 years old, respectively. For subjects aged from 1 to 18years, boys had slightly higher cTnT levels than girls (P = .003), while our assay could not measure low cTnT concentrations (>= the limit of detection) in 50% girls. Our study provided age-specific URLs of cTnT for Chinese children, with the 5th generation cTnT assay from Roche Diagnostics. It had significant clinical implications in the interpretation and use of test results for pediatric cardiology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据