• European heart journal · Sep 2014

    Multicenter Study Comparative Study Observational Study

    Direct comparison of high-sensitivity-cardiac troponin I vs. T for the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction.

    • Maria Rubini Gimenez, Raphael Twerenbold, Tobias Reichlin, Karin Wildi, Philip Haaf, Miriam Schaefer, Christa Zellweger, Berit Moehring, Fabio Stallone, Seoung Mann Sou, Mira Mueller, Kris Denhaerynck, Tamina Mosimann, Miriam Reiter, Bernadette Meller, Michael Freese, Claudia Stelzig, Irina Klimmeck, Janine Voegele, Beate Hartmann, Katharina Rentsch, Stefan Osswald, and Christian Mueller.
    • Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland Servicio de Urgencias y Pneumologia, CIBERES ISC III, Hospital del Mar - Institut Municipal D'Investigació Mèdica, Barcelona, Spain.
    • Eur. Heart J. 2014 Sep 7; 35 (34): 2303-11.

    AimIt 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 ResultsIn 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).ConclusionBoth 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. © The Author 2014. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…