Júlia Karády1, Thomas Mayrhofer2, Maros Ferencik3, John T Nagurney4, James E Udelson5, Andreas A Kammerlander6, Jerome L Fleg7, W Frank Peacock8, James L Januzzi9, Wolfgang Koenig10, Udo Hoffmann11. 1. Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital-Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; MTA-SE Cardiovascular Imaging Research Group, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. Electronic address: jkarady@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital-Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; School of Business Studies, Stralsund University of Applied Sciences, Stralsund, Germany. 3. Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital-Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital-Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Division of Cardiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 7. Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 8. Department of Emergency Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 9. Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 10. Institute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany; Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany; DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany. 11. Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital-Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays have different analytic characteristics. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to quantify differences between assays for common analytical benchmarks and to determine whether they may result in differences in the management of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: The authors included patients with suspected ACS enrolled in the ROMICAT (Rule Out Myocardial Infarction/Ischemia Using Computer Assisted Tomography) I and II trials, with blood samples taken at emergency department presentation (ROMICAT-I and -II) or at 2 and 4 h thereafter (ROMICAT-II). hs-cTn concentrations were measured using 3 assays (Roche Diagnostics, Elecsys 2010 platform; Abbott Diagnostics, ARCHITECT i2000SR; Siemens Diagnostics, HsVista). Per blood sample, we determined concordance across analytic benchmarks (<limit of detection [<LOD]/LOD-99th percentile/>99th percentile). Per-patient, the authors determined concordance of management recommendations (rule-out/observe/rule-in) per the 0/2-h algorithm, and their association with diagnostic test findings (coronary artery stenosis >50% on coronary computed tomography angiography or inducible ischemia on perfusion imaging) and ACS. RESULTS: Among 1,027 samples from 624 patients (52.8 ± 10.0 years; 39.4% women), samples were classified as <LOD (56.3% vs. 10.4% vs. 41.2%; p < 0.001), LOD-99th percentile (36.5% vs. 83.5% vs. 52.6; p < 0.001), >99th percentile (7.2% vs. 6.0% vs. 6.2%) by Roche, Abbott, and Siemens, respectively. A total of 37.4% (n = 384 of 1,027) of blood samples were classified into the same analytical benchmark category, with low concordance across benchmarks (<LOD 11.1%; LOD-99th percentile 29.3%; >99th percentile 43.6%). Serial samples were available in 242 patients (40.1% women; mean age: 52.8 ± 8.0 years). The concordance of management recommendations across assays was 74.8% (n = 181 of 242) considering serial hs-cTn measurements. Of patients who were recommended to discharge, 19.6% to 21.1% had positive diagnostic test findings and 2.8% to 4.3% had ACS at presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers should be aware that there are significant differences between hs-cTn assays in stratifying individual samples and patients with intermediate likelihood of ACS according to analytical benchmarks that may result in different management recommendations. (Rule Out Myocardial Infarction by Computer Assisted Tomography [ROMICAT]; NCT00990262) (Multicenter Study to Rule Out Myocardial Infarction by Cardiac Computed Tomography [ROMICAT-II]; NCT01084239).
BACKGROUND: High-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays have different analytic characteristics. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to quantify differences between assays for common analytical benchmarks and to determine whether they may result in differences in the management of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: The authors included patients with suspected ACS enrolled in the ROMICAT (Rule Out Myocardial Infarction/Ischemia Using Computer Assisted Tomography) I and II trials, with blood samples taken at emergency department presentation (ROMICAT-I and -II) or at 2 and 4 h thereafter (ROMICAT-II). hs-cTn concentrations were measured using 3 assays (Roche Diagnostics, Elecsys 2010 platform; Abbott Diagnostics, ARCHITECT i2000SR; Siemens Diagnostics, HsVista). Per blood sample, we determined concordance across analytic benchmarks (<limit of detection [<LOD]/LOD-99th percentile/>99th percentile). Per-patient, the authors determined concordance of management recommendations (rule-out/observe/rule-in) per the 0/2-h algorithm, and their association with diagnostic test findings (coronary artery stenosis >50% on coronary computed tomography angiography or inducible ischemia on perfusion imaging) and ACS. RESULTS: Among 1,027 samples from 624 patients (52.8 ± 10.0 years; 39.4% women), samples were classified as <LOD (56.3% vs. 10.4% vs. 41.2%; p < 0.001), LOD-99th percentile (36.5% vs. 83.5% vs. 52.6; p < 0.001), >99th percentile (7.2% vs. 6.0% vs. 6.2%) by Roche, Abbott, and Siemens, respectively. A total of 37.4% (n = 384 of 1,027) of blood samples were classified into the same analytical benchmark category, with low concordance across benchmarks (<LOD 11.1%; LOD-99th percentile 29.3%; >99th percentile 43.6%). Serial samples were available in 242 patients (40.1% women; mean age: 52.8 ± 8.0 years). The concordance of management recommendations across assays was 74.8% (n = 181 of 242) considering serial hs-cTn measurements. Of patients who were recommended to discharge, 19.6% to 21.1% had positive diagnostic test findings and 2.8% to 4.3% had ACS at presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers should be aware that there are significant differences between hs-cTn assays in stratifying individual samples and patients with intermediate likelihood of ACS according to analytical benchmarks that may result in different management recommendations. (Rule Out Myocardial Infarction by Computer Assisted Tomography [ROMICAT]; NCT00990262) (Multicenter Study to Rule Out Myocardial Infarction by Cardiac Computed Tomography [ROMICAT-II]; NCT01084239).
Authors: Jasper Boeddinghaus; Raphael Twerenbold; Thomas Nestelberger; Patrick Badertscher; Karin Wildi; Christian Puelacher; Jeanne du Fay de Lavallaz; Elif Keser; Maria Rubini Giménez; Desiree Wussler; Nikola Kozhuharov; Katharina Rentsch; Òscar Miró; F Javier Martin-Sanchez; Beata Morawiec; Sabrina Stefanelli; Nicolas Geigy; Dagmar I Keller; Tobias Reichlin; Christian Mueller Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Paul O Collinson; Yen Ming Heung; David Gaze; Frances Boa; Roxy Senior; Robert Christenson; Fred S Apple Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2011-11-18 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Maros Ferencik; Thomas Mayrhofer; Michael T Lu; Pamela K Woodard; Quynh A Truong; W Frank Peacock; Fabian Bamberg; Benjamin C Sun; Jerome L Fleg; John T Nagurney; James E Udelson; Wolfgang Koenig; James L Januzzi; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Evangelos Giannitsis; Kerstin Kurz; Klaus Hallermayer; Jochen Jarausch; Allan S Jaffe; Hugo A Katus Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2009-12-03 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Udo Hoffmann; Fabian Bamberg; Claudia U Chae; John H Nichols; Ian S Rogers; Sujith K Seneviratne; Quynh A Truong; Ricardo C Cury; Suhny Abbara; Michael D Shapiro; Jamaluddin Moloo; Javed Butler; Maros Ferencik; Hang Lee; Ik-Kyung Jang; Blair A Parry; David F Brown; James E Udelson; Stephan Achenbach; Thomas J Brady; John T Nagurney Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-05-05 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