Fred S Apple1, Yader Sandoval2, Allan S Jaffe3, Jordi Ordonez-Llanos4. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Hennepin County Medical Center, and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; apple004@umn.edu. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center and Minneapolis Heart Institute, Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis, MN. 3. Mayo Clinic and Mayo College of Medicine, Rochester, MN. 4. Servei Bioquimica, IBB-Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau and Department de Bioquimica i Biologia Molecular, Universitat Autònoma, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and cardiac troponin T (cTnT) determinations are fixtures in clinical practice and research. Cardiac troponin testing has been the standard of practice for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), early rule-out, risk stratification, and outcomes assessment in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and non-ACS myocardial injury. We recognize from reading the literature over the past several years how poorly understood the analytical characteristics are for cTnI and cTnT assays by laboratorians, clinicians, and scientists who use these assays. CONTENT: The purposes of this mini-review are (a) to define limit of blank, limit of detection, limit of quantification, and imprecision, (b) overview the analytical characteristics of the existing cardiac troponin assays, (c) recommend approaches to define a healthy (normal) reference population for determining the 99th percentile and the appropriate statistic to use for this calculation, (d) clarify how an assay becomes designated as "high sensitivity," and (e) provide guidance on determining delta (Δ) change values. SUMMARY: This review raises important educational information regarding cTnI and cTnT assays, their 99th percentile upper reference limits (URL) differentiated by sex, and specifically addresses high-sensitivity (hs)-assays used to measure low concentrations. Recommendations are made to help clarify the nomenclature and analytical and clinical characteristics to define hs-assays. The review also identifies challenges for the evolving implementation of hs-assays into clinical practice. It is hoped that with the introduction of these concepts, laboratorians, clinicians and researchers can develop a more unified view of how these assays should be used worldwide.
BACKGROUND:Cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and cardiac troponin T (cTnT) determinations are fixtures in clinical practice and research. Cardiac troponin testing has been the standard of practice for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), early rule-out, risk stratification, and outcomes assessment in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and non-ACS myocardial injury. We recognize from reading the literature over the past several years how poorly understood the analytical characteristics are for cTnI and cTnT assays by laboratorians, clinicians, and scientists who use these assays. CONTENT: The purposes of this mini-review are (a) to define limit of blank, limit of detection, limit of quantification, and imprecision, (b) overview the analytical characteristics of the existing cardiac troponin assays, (c) recommend approaches to define a healthy (normal) reference population for determining the 99th percentile and the appropriate statistic to use for this calculation, (d) clarify how an assay becomes designated as "high sensitivity," and (e) provide guidance on determining delta (Δ) change values. SUMMARY: This review raises important educational information regarding cTnI and cTnT assays, their 99th percentile upper reference limits (URL) differentiated by sex, and specifically addresses high-sensitivity (hs)-assays used to measure low concentrations. Recommendations are made to help clarify the nomenclature and analytical and clinical characteristics to define hs-assays. The review also identifies challenges for the evolving implementation of hs-assays into clinical practice. It is hoped that with the introduction of these concepts, laboratorians, clinicians and researchers can develop a more unified view of how these assays should be used worldwide.
Authors: A Duma; C Wagner; M Titz; M Maleczek; M Hüpfl; V B Weihs; E Samaha; H Herkner; T Szekeres; M Mittlboeck; M G Scott; A S Jaffe; P Nagele Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Dirk Westermann; Johannes Tobias Neumann; Nils Arne Sörensen; Stefan Blankenberg Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Bruno B Lima; Muhammad Hammadah; Jeong Hwan Kim; Irina Uphoff; Amit Shah; Oleksiy Levantsevych; Zakaria Almuwaqqat; Kasra Moazzami; Samaah Sullivan; Laura Ward; Yan Sun; Michael Kutner; Yi-An Ko; David S Sheps; Agim Beshiri; Gillian Murtagh; J Douglas Bremner; Viola Vaccarino; Arshed A Quyyumi Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Merete Vaage-Nilsen; Dorte L Nielsen; Anne Dyhl-Polk; Morten Schou; Kirsten K Vistisen; Anne-Sophie Sillesen; Eva Serup-Hansen; Jens Faber; Tobias W Klausen; Stig E Bojesen Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-10-07