Akshay Bagai1, Karen P Alexander2, Jeffrey S Berger3, Roxy Senior4, Chakkanalil Sajeev5, Radoslaw Pracon6, Kreton Mavromatis7, Jose Luis Lopez-Sendón8, Gilbert Gosselin9, Ariel Diaz10, Gian Perna11, Jarozlaw Drozdz12, Dennis Humen13, Birute Petrauskiene14, Asim N Cheema15, Denis Phaneuf16, Subhash Banerjee17, Todd D Miller18, Sasko Kedev19, Herwig Schuchlenz20, Gregg W Stone21, Shaun G Goodman22, Kenneth W Mahaffey23, Allan S Jaffe18, Yves D Rosenberg24, Sripal Bangalore3, L Kristin Newby2, David J Maron23, Judith S Hochman3, Bernard R Chaitman25. 1. Terrence Donnelly Heart Centre, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: bagaia@smh.ca. 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC. 3. New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY. 4. National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK; Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow, UK; Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK. 5. Government Medical College Calicut, Kozhikode, Kerala, India. 6. Coronary and Structural Heart Diseases Department, Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland. 7. Atlanta VA Medical Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Decatur, GA. 8. Cardiology department, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Idipaz, Madrid, Spain. 9. Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada. 10. University of Montreal, Campus Mauricie, Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada. 11. Cardiology and ICCU-Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy. 12. Department Cardiology, Medical University, Lodz, Poland. 13. University Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada. 14. Vilnius University and Vilnius University Hospital "Santariskiu Clinic,", Vilnius, Lithuania. 15. Terrence Donnelly Heart Centre, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 16. Hôpital Pierre-Le Gardeur, Terrebonne, Québec, Canada. 17. Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care System and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 18. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 19. University Clinic of Cardiology, Vodnjanska 17, 1000 Skopje, Macedonia. 20. Department of Cardiology and Intensive Care, LHK Graz-Sued/West, Standort West, Graz, Austria. 21. Columbia University Medical Center and The Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY. 22. Terrence Donnelly Heart Centre, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Canadian Heart Research Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 23. Stanford Center for Clinical Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. 24. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, MD. 25. St Louis University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction recommends the 99th percentile concentration of cardiac troponin in a normal reference population as part of the decision threshold to diagnose type 1 spontaneous myocardial infarction. Adoption of this recommendation in contemporary worldwide practice is not well known. METHODS: We performed a cohort study of 276 hospital laboratories in 31 countries participating in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial. Each hospital laboratory's troponin assay manufacturer and model, the recommended assay's 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL) from the manufacturer's package insert, and the troponin concentration used locally as the decision level to diagnose myocardial infarction were ascertained. RESULTS: Twenty-one unique troponin assays from 9 manufacturers were used by the surveyed hospital laboratories. The ratio of the troponin concentration used locally to diagnose myocardial infarction to the assay manufacturer-determined 99th percentile URL was <1 at 19 (6.6%) laboratories, equal to 1 at 91 (31.6%) laboratories, >1 to ≤5 at 101 (35.1%) laboratories, >5 to ≤10 at 34 (11.8%) laboratories, and >10 at 43 (14.9%) laboratories. The variability in troponin decision level for myocardial infarction relative to the assay 99th percentile URL was present for laboratories in and outside of the United States, as well as for high- and standard-sensitivity assays. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial hospital-level variation in the troponin threshold used to diagnose myocardial infarction; only one-third of hospital laboratories currently follow the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction consensus recommendation for use of troponin concentration at the 99th percentile of a normal reference population as the decision level to diagnose myocardial infarction. This variability across laboratories has important implications for both the diagnosis of myocardial infarction in clinical practice as well as adjudication of myocardial infarction in clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: The Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction recommends the 99th percentile concentration of cardiac troponin in a normal reference population as part of the decision threshold to diagnose type 1 spontaneous myocardial infarction. Adoption of this recommendation in contemporary worldwide practice is not well known. METHODS: We performed a cohort study of 276 hospital laboratories in 31 countries participating in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial. Each hospital laboratory's troponin assay manufacturer and model, the recommended assay's 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL) from the manufacturer's package insert, and the troponin concentration used locally as the decision level to diagnose myocardial infarction were ascertained. RESULTS: Twenty-one unique troponin assays from 9 manufacturers were used by the surveyed hospital laboratories. The ratio of the troponin concentration used locally to diagnose myocardial infarction to the assay manufacturer-determined 99th percentile URL was <1 at 19 (6.6%) laboratories, equal to 1 at 91 (31.6%) laboratories, >1 to ≤5 at 101 (35.1%) laboratories, >5 to ≤10 at 34 (11.8%) laboratories, and >10 at 43 (14.9%) laboratories. The variability in troponin decision level for myocardial infarction relative to the assay 99th percentile URL was present for laboratories in and outside of the United States, as well as for high- and standard-sensitivity assays. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial hospital-level variation in the troponin threshold used to diagnose myocardial infarction; only one-third of hospital laboratories currently follow the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction consensus recommendation for use of troponin concentration at the 99th percentile of a normal reference population as the decision level to diagnose myocardial infarction. This variability across laboratories has important implications for both the diagnosis of myocardial infarction in clinical practice as well as adjudication of myocardial infarction in clinical trials.
Authors: Eline P M Cardinaels; Alma M A Mingels; Leo H J Jacobs; Steven J R Meex; Otto Bekers; Marja P van Dieijen-Visser Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Lars Wallentin; Daniel Lindholm; Agneta Siegbahn; Lisa Wernroth; Richard C Becker; Christopher P Cannon; Jan H Cornel; Anders Himmelmann; Evangelos Giannitsis; Robert A Harrington; Claes Held; Steen Husted; Hugo A Katus; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Ph Gabriel Steg; Robert F Storey; Stefan K James Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Karen A Hicks; James E Tcheng; Biykem Bozkurt; Bernard R Chaitman; Donald E Cutlip; Andrew Farb; Gregg C Fonarow; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Michael R Jaff; Judith H Lichtman; Marian C Limacher; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Roxana Mehran; Steven E Nissen; Eric E Smith; Shari L Targum Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-12-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Paul Collinson; Angelika Hammerer-Lercher; Janne Suvisaari; Fred S Apple; Rob H Christenson; Kari Pulkki; Marja P van Dieijen-Visser; Christopher J Duff; Hannsjörg Baum; Ana Stavljenic-Rukavina; Kristin M Aakre; Michel R Langlois; Sanja Stankovic; Paivi Laitinen Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Erin A Bohula May; Marc P Bonaca; Petr Jarolim; Elliott M Antman; Eugene Braunwald; Robert P Giugliano; L Kristin Newby; Marc S Sabatine; David A Morrow Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 8.327
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: Evangelos Giannitsis; Lars Wallentin; Stefan K James; Maria Bertilsson; Agneta Siegbahn; Robert F Storey; Steen Husted; Christopher P Cannon; Paul W Armstrong; Philippe G Steg; Hugo A Katus Journal: Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care Date: 2016-04-04
Authors: Nicholas L Mills; Kuan Ken Lee; David A McAllister; Antonia M D Churchhouse; Margaret MacLeod; Mary Stoddart; Simon Walker; Martin A Denvir; Keith A A Fox; David E Newby Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-03-15
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
Authors: Bernard R Chaitman; Karen P Alexander; Derek D Cyr; Jeffrey S Berger; Harmony R Reynolds; Sripal Bangalore; William E Boden; Renato D Lopes; Marcin Demkow; Gian Piero Perna; Robert K Riezebos; Edward O McFalls; Subhash Banerjee; Akshay Bagai; Gilbert Gosselin; Sean M O'Brien; Frank W Rockhold; David D Waters; Kristian A Thygesen; Gregg W Stone; Harvey D White; David J Maron; Judith S Hochman Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anoop S V Shah; Atul Anand; Fiona E Strachan; Amy V Ferry; Kuan Ken Lee; Andrew R Chapman; Dennis Sandeman; Catherine L Stables; Philip D Adamson; Jack P M Andrews; Mohamed S Anwar; John Hung; Alistair J Moss; Rachel O'Brien; Colin Berry; Iain Findlay; Simon Walker; Anne Cruickshank; Alan Reid; Alasdair Gray; Paul O Collinson; Fred S Apple; David A McAllister; Donogh Maguire; Keith A A Fox; David E Newby; Christopher Tuck; Ronald Harkess; Richard A Parker; Catriona Keerie; Christopher J Weir; Nicholas L Mills Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-08-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Leonardo Italia; Giacomo Ingallina; Antonio Napolano; Antonio Boccellino; Martina Belli; Francesco Cannata; Marco Rolando; Francesco Ancona; Francesco Melillo; Stefano Stella; Marco Ripa; Paolo Scarpellini; Moreno Tresoldi; Alessandro Ortalda; Beatrice Righetti; Francesco De Cobelli; Antonio Esposito; Fabio Ciceri; Antonella Castagna; Patrizia Querini Rovere; Gabriele Fragasso; Eustachio Agricola Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 1.724
Authors: Antonio Haddad Tapias Filho; Gustavo Bernardes de Figueiredo Oliveira; João Italo Dias França; Rui Fernando Ramos Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 2.667
Authors: Nikhil Singh; Rajeev K Anchan; Stephanie A Besser; Mark N Belkin; Mark D Cruz; Linda Lee; Dongbo Yu; Natasha Mehta; Ann B Nguyen; Francis J Alenghat Journal: Biomarkers Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 2.658