4.7 Article

Clinical Performance of Two Highly Sensitive Cardiac Troponin I Assays

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 55, 期 1, 页码 109-116

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2008.106500

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of 2 sensitive cTnI assays with 10% CV imprecision below the 99th percentile upper reference limit. METHODS: We measured cardiac troponin and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations in a random sample of the Global Use of Strategies To Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) IV cohort (n = 1251). Outcome data of 1-year mortality and the composite endpoint DMI [death and/or invocardial infarction (MI) within 30 days] were available in all patients. The 99th percentile of a healthy population was estimated from the Sweden Women and Men and Ischemic Heart Disease (SWISCH) cohort (n = 442). We measured cardiac troponin I (cTnI) using the Access AccuTnI (Beckman Coulter) and Centaur TnI Ultra (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics) and NT-proBNP using the Elecsys 2010 (Roche Diagnostics). RESULTS: Applying the 10% CV cutoff, the sensitivity of the Access AccuTnI assay in identifying DMI and death was higher than that of the Centaur TnI Ultra (P = 0.02 and P < 0.001), and the AccuTnI assay also identified more patients at risk (P < 0.001) and with poor outcome. Applying the 99th percentile cutoffs, AccuTnI identified more patients at risk than the Centaur TnI (P < 0.001) and with significant differences in outcome. Significantly more patients with cardiac troponins below the cutoffs as measured by Centaur TnI had increased NT-proBNP concentrations (P < 0.001) compared with AccuTnI. CONCLUSIONS: The AccuTnI assay identified more patients at risk than the Centaur cTnI ultra assay. Our results demonstrate the clinical potential of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays for the identification of patients at risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. (C) 2008 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

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

4.7
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