OBJECTIVE: The study sought to compare the clinical performance of two more sensitive cardiac troponin (cTn) assays, a novel high-sensitivity (hs) troponin T assay and a contemporary cTnI assay. METHODS: We measured hs-cTnT (Roche TnThs) and cTnI (Siemens Centaur Ultra) on presentation in 1,384 patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent early invasive strategy within 24 h after presentation. Kaplan-Meier, Cox proportional hazards, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare their prognostic performance for the prediction of all-cause death and death/MI (myocardial infarction) after a median of 271 days. We also compared the diagnostic performance of these assays on presentation for early diagnosis of non-STEMI. RESULTS: Both hs-cTnT and cTnI were independently predictive of long-term death (OR 3.51 vs. 2.19) and the composite of death/MI (OR 9.24 vs. 3.61), across the spectrum of ACS and in patients without ACS. When used as a continuous variable, ROC analysis demonstrated significantly higher areas under the curve (AUC) for hs-cTnT as compared to cTnI for the prediction of death/MI (0.721 vs. 0.672, P = 0.024), a trend to better prediction of all-cause death (0.721 vs. 0.672, P = 0.093) and significantly higher AUC for early diagnosis of non-STEMI (0.965 vs. 0.901, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Using the 99th percentile cutoff for hs-cTnT and cTnI, both assays enable prediction of adverse long-term outcomes and earlier diagnosis of non-STEMI. Used as a continuous variable, the hs-cTnT assay showed superior performance compared to the cTnI assay, especially in regard to prognosis.
OBJECTIVE: The study sought to compare the clinical performance of two more sensitive cardiac troponin (cTn) assays, a novel high-sensitivity (hs) troponin T assay and a contemporary cTnI assay. METHODS: We measured hs-cTnT (Roche TnThs) and cTnI (Siemens Centaur Ultra) on presentation in 1,384 patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent early invasive strategy within 24 h after presentation. Kaplan-Meier, Cox proportional hazards, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare their prognostic performance for the prediction of all-cause death and death/MI (myocardial infarction) after a median of 271 days. We also compared the diagnostic performance of these assays on presentation for early diagnosis of non-STEMI. RESULTS: Both hs-cTnT and cTnI were independently predictive of long-term death (OR 3.51 vs. 2.19) and the composite of death/MI (OR 9.24 vs. 3.61), across the spectrum of ACS and in patients without ACS. When used as a continuous variable, ROC analysis demonstrated significantly higher areas under the curve (AUC) for hs-cTnT as compared to cTnI for the prediction of death/MI (0.721 vs. 0.672, P = 0.024), a trend to better prediction of all-cause death (0.721 vs. 0.672, P = 0.093) and significantly higher AUC for early diagnosis of non-STEMI (0.965 vs. 0.901, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Using the 99th percentile cutoff for hs-cTnT and cTnI, both assays enable prediction of adverse long-term outcomes and earlier diagnosis of non-STEMI. Used as a continuous variable, the hs-cTnT assay showed superior performance compared to the cTnI assay, especially in regard to prognosis.
Authors: David A Morrow; Nader Rifai; Marc S Sabatine; Shake Ayanian; Sabina A Murphy; James A de Lemos; Eugene Braunwald; Christopher P Cannon Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Stefan James; Paul Armstrong; Robert Califf; Maarten L Simoons; Per Venge; Lars Wallentin; Bertil Lindahl Journal: Am J Med Date: 2003-08-15 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Adnan Kastrati; Julinda Mehilli; Franz-Josef Neumann; Franz Dotzer; Jurriën ten Berg; Hildegard Bollwein; Isolde Graf; Maryam Ibrahim; Jürgen Pache; Melchior Seyfarth; Helmut Schühlen; Josef Dirschinger; Peter B Berger; Albert Schömig Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-03-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Till Keller; Tanja Zeller; Dirk Peetz; Stergios Tzikas; Alexander Roth; Ewa Czyz; Christoph Bickel; Stephan Baldus; Ascan Warnholtz; Meike Fröhlich; Christoph R Sinning; Medea S Eleftheriadis; Philipp S Wild; Renate B Schnabel; Edith Lubos; Nicole Jachmann; Sabine Genth-Zotz; Felix Post; Viviane Nicaud; Laurence Tiret; Karl J Lackner; Thomas F Münzel; Stefan Blankenberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael C Kontos; Rakesh Shah; Lucie M Fritz; F Philip Anderson; James L Tatum; Joseph P Ornato; Robert L Jesse Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-03-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Christopher John Boos; Adrian Mellor; Joe Begley; Michael Stacey; Chris Smith; Amanda Hawkins; David Richard Woods Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2013-12-21 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Solmaz Assa; Ron T Gansevoort; Ralf Westerhuis; Anneke C Muller Kobold; Adriaan A Voors; Paul E de Jong; Stephan J L Bakker; Casper F M Franssen Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2013-02-09 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Thomas Meinertz; Anno Diegeler; Brigitte Stiller; Eckart Fleck; Markus K Heinemann; Achim A Schmaltz; Martin Vestweber; Kurt Bestehorn; Andreas Beckmann; Christian Hamm; Jochen Cremer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Jens Wiebe; Helge Möllmann; Astrid Most; Oliver Dörr; Kay Weipert; Johannes Rixe; Christoph Liebetrau; Albrecht Elsässer; Stephan Achenbach; Christian Hamm; Holger Nef Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Christoph Sinning; Till Keller; Tanja Zeller; Francisco Ojeda; Michael Schlüter; Renate Schnabel; Edith Lubos; Christoph Bickel; Karl J Lackner; Patrick Diemert; Thomas Munzel; Stefan Blankenberg; Philipp S Wild Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2013-11-23 Impact factor: 5.460