Evaluation of first-draw whole blood, point-of-care cardiac markers in the context of the universal definition of myocardial infarction: a comparison of a multimarker panel to troponin alone and to testing in the central laboratory

CONTEXTPrevious studies evaluating point-of-care testing (POCT) for cardiac biomarkers did not use current recommendations for troponin cutoff values or recognize the recent universal definition of acute myocardial infarction. Traditionally, achieving optimal sensitivity for the detection of myocard...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976) 2011-04, Vol.135 (4), p.459-463
Hauptverfasser: Lee-Lewandrowski, Elizabeth, Januzzi, James L, Grisson, Ricky, Mohammed, Asim A, Lewandrowski, Grant, Lewandrowski, Kent
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:CONTEXTPrevious studies evaluating point-of-care testing (POCT) for cardiac biomarkers did not use current recommendations for troponin cutoff values or recognize the recent universal definition of acute myocardial infarction. Traditionally, achieving optimal sensitivity for the detection of myocardial injury on initial presentation required combining cardiac troponin and/or creatine kinase isoenzyme MB with an early marker, usually myoglobin. In recent years, the performance of central laboratory combining cardiac troponin assays has improved significantly, potentially obviating the need for a multimarker panel to achieve optimum sensitivity. OBJECTIVETo compare 2 commonly used POCT strategies to a fourth generation, central laboratory cardiac troponin T assay on first-draw specimens from patients being evaluated for acute myocardial infarction in the emergency department. The 2 strategies included a traditional POCT multimarker panel and a newer POCT method using cardiac troponin I alone. DESIGNBlood specimens from 204 patients presenting to the emergency department with signs and/or symptoms of myocardial ischemia were measured on the 2 POCT systems and by a central laboratory method. The diagnosis for each patient was determined by retrospective chart review. RESULTSThe cardiac troponin T assasy alone was more sensitive for acute myocardial infarction than the multimarker POCT panel with equal or better specificity. When compared with a POCT troponin I, the cardiac troponin T was also more sensitive, but this difference was not significant. The POCT troponin I alone also had the same sensitivity as the multimarker panel. CONCLUSIONSTesting for combining cardiac troponin alone using newer, commercially available, central laboratory or POCT assays performed with equal or greater sensitivity to acute myocardial infarction as the older, traditional, multimarker panel. In the near future, high-sensitivity, central laboratory troponins will be available for routine clinical use. As a result, the quality gap between central laboratories and older POCT methods will continue to widen, unless the performance of the POCT methods is improved.
ISSN:1543-2165
DOI:10.1043/2010-0112-OA.1