AIM: It is unknown whether cardiac troponin (cTn) I or cTnT is the preferred biomarker in the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction without ST segment elevation (NSTEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: In a prospective multicentre study, we measured cTnI and cTnT using clinically available high-sensitivity assays (hs-cTnI Abbott and hs-cTnT Roche) and compared their diagnostic and prognostic accuracies in consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with acute chest pain. The final diagnosis was adjudicated by two independent cardiologists using all information pertaining to the individual patient. The mean follow-up was 24 months. Among 2226 consecutive patients, 18% had an adjudicated final diagnosis of NSTEMI. Diagnostic accuracy at presentation as quantified by the area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) for NSTEMI was very high and similar for hs-cTnI [AUC: 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-0.94] and hs-cTnT (0.94, 95% CI: 0.92-0.94) P = 0.62. In early presenters (<3 h since chest pain onset) hs-cTnI showed a higher diagnostic accuracy (AUC: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89-0.94) when compared with hs-cTnT AUC (0.89, 95% CI: 0.86-0.91) (P = 0.019), while hs-cTnT was superior in late presenters [AUC hs-cTnT 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.96) vs. hs-cTnI 0.94 (95% CI: 0.93-0.95); P = 0.007]. The prognostic accuracy for all-cause mortality, quantified by AUC, was significantly higher for hs-cTnT (AUC: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.78-0.82) when compared with hs-cTnI (AUC: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.73-0.77; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT provided high diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. The direct comparison revealed small but potentially important differences that might help to further improve the clinical use of hs-cTn. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIM: It is unknown whether cardiac troponin (cTn) I or cTnT is the preferred biomarker in the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction without ST segment elevation (NSTEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: In a prospective multicentre study, we measured cTnI and cTnT using clinically available high-sensitivity assays (hs-cTnI Abbott and hs-cTnT Roche) and compared their diagnostic and prognostic accuracies in consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with acute chest pain. The final diagnosis was adjudicated by two independent cardiologists using all information pertaining to the individual patient. The mean follow-up was 24 months. Among 2226 consecutive patients, 18% had an adjudicated final diagnosis of NSTEMI. Diagnostic accuracy at presentation as quantified by the area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) for NSTEMI was very high and similar for hs-cTnI [AUC: 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-0.94] and hs-cTnT (0.94, 95% CI: 0.92-0.94) P = 0.62. In early presenters (<3 h since chest pain onset) hs-cTnI showed a higher diagnostic accuracy (AUC: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89-0.94) when compared with hs-cTnT AUC (0.89, 95% CI: 0.86-0.91) (P = 0.019), while hs-cTnT was superior in late presenters [AUC hs-cTnT 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.96) vs. hs-cTnI 0.94 (95% CI: 0.93-0.95); P = 0.007]. The prognostic accuracy for all-cause mortality, quantified by AUC, was significantly higher for hs-cTnT (AUC: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.78-0.82) when compared with hs-cTnI (AUC: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.73-0.77; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT provided high diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. The direct comparison revealed small but potentially important differences that might help to further improve the clinical use of hs-cTn. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Jasper Boeddinghaus; Tobias Reichlin; Thomas Nestelberger; Raphael Twerenbold; Yvette Meili; Karin Wildi; Petra Hillinger; Maria Rubini Giménez; Janosch Cupa; Lukas Schumacher; Marie Schubera; Patrick Badertscher; Sydney Corbière; Karin Grimm; Christian Puelacher; Zaid Sabti; Dayana Flores Widmer; Nicolas Schaerli; Nikola Kozhuharov; Samyut Shrestha; Tobias Bürge; Patrick Mächler; Michael Büchi; Katharina Rentsch; Òscar Miró; Beatriz López; F Javier Martin-Sanchez; Esther Rodriguez-Adrada; Beata Morawiec; Damian Kawecki; Eva Ganovská; Jiri Parenica; Jens Lohrmann; Andreas Buser; Dagmar I Keller; Stefan Osswald; Christian Mueller Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Tobias Reichlin; Raphael Twerenbold; Karin Wildi; Maria Rubini Gimenez; Nathalie Bergsma; Philip Haaf; Sophie Druey; Christian Puelacher; Berit Moehring; Michael Freese; Claudia Stelzig; Lian Krivoshei; Petra Hillinger; Cedric Jäger; Thomas Herrmann; Philip Kreutzinger; Milos Radosavac; Zoraida Moreno Weidmann; Kateryna Pershyna; Ursina Honegger; Max Wagener; Thierry Vuillomenet; Isabel Campodarve; Roland Bingisser; Òscar Miró; Katharina Rentsch; Stefano Bassetti; Stefan Osswald; Christian Mueller Journal: CMAJ Date: 2015-04-13 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Petra Hillinger; Raphael Twerenbold; Karin Wildi; Maria Rubini Gimenez; Cedric Jaeger; Jasper Boeddinghaus; Thomas Nestelberger; Karin Grimm; Tobias Reichlin; Fabio Stallone; Christian Puelacher; Zaid Sabti; Nikola Kozhuharov; Ursina Honegger; Paola Ballarino; Oscar Miro; Kris Denhaerynck; Temizel Ekrem; Claudia Kohler; Roland Bingisser; Stefan Osswald; Christian Mueller Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Ivo Strebel; Raphael Twerenbold; Jasper Boeddinghaus; Roger Abächerli; Maria Rubini Giménez; Karin Wildi; Karin Grimm; Christian Puelacher; Patrick Badertscher; Zaid Sabti; Dominik Breitenbücher; Janina Jann; Farah Selman; Jeanne du Fay de Lavallaz; Nicolas Schaerli; Thomas Nestelberger; Claudia Stelzig; Michael Freese; Lukas Schumacher; Stefan Osswald; Christian Mueller; Tobias Reichlin Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2018-02-24 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Paul Welsh; David Preiss; Anoop S V Shah; David McAllister; Andrew Briggs; Charles Boachie; Alex McConnachie; Caroline Hayward; Sandosh Padmanabhan; Claire Welsh; Mark Woodward; Archie Campbell; David Porteous; Nicholas L Mills; Naveed Sattar Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: S J Rotz; T D Ryan; S Jodele; J L Jefferies; A Lane; A Pate; R Hirsch; J Hlavaty; A E Levesque; M D Taylor; M Cash; K C Myers; J A El-Bietar; S M Davies; C E Dandoy Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Júlia Karády; Thomas Mayrhofer; Maros Ferencik; John T Nagurney; James E Udelson; Andreas A Kammerlander; Jerome L Fleg; W Frank Peacock; James L Januzzi; Wolfgang Koenig; Udo Hoffmann Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Karin Wildi; Maria Rubini Gimenez; Raphael Twerenbold; Tobias Reichlin; Cedric Jaeger; Amely Heinzelmann; Christiane Arnold; Berit Nelles; Sophie Druey; Philip Haaf; Petra Hillinger; Nicolas Schaerli; Philipp Kreutzinger; Yunus Tanglay; Thomas Herrmann; Zoraida Moreno Weidmann; Lian Krivoshei; Michael Freese; Claudia Stelzig; Christian Puelacher; Katharina Rentsch; Stefan Osswald; Christian Mueller Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 29.690