October 17, 2025Open Access

Analytical Error of Cardiac Troponin and Impact on the Performance of Accelerated Diagnostic Protocols in Patients with Acute Chest Pain

Key Points

Analytical bias impacts the clinical rule-out rate more than diagnostic sensitivity in fast-tracking chest pain assessments.
For the 0-h rule-out, hs-cTnI-S maintained a sensitivity above 99%, while hs-cTnI-A dropped to 97.7% with bias adjustments.
Sensitivity was less affected for hs-cTnI-S after bias was introduced, remaining at 100.0%, compared to hs-cTnT at 95.5%.
Variation in rule-out proportions suggests that bias contributes to inconsistent reports of accelerated diagnostic protocols for acute chest pain.

Abstract

Abstract Background This study simulates how assay-specific bias influences the diagnostic performance of 0/1-h accelerated diagnostic protocols (ADPs) for 3 different high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays. Methods We included 1493 patients presenting with chest pain. hs-cTnT (Roche Diagnostics), hs-cTnI from Abbott Diagnostics (hs-cTnI-A), and Siemens Healthineers (hs-cTnI-S) were measured at admission. The absolute total error observed in a state-of-the-art EQA study were added to the admission concentrations, producing 6 new variables being adjusted for maximum possible bias (if analytical variation is 0) (+biasmean, +biasmax95%CI, +biasmin95%CI, −biasmean, −biasmax95%CI, −biasmin95%CI). The influence of this “worst-case scenario” bias was compared after calculating sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and rule-out proportion for 30-day myocardial infarction or death for the observed and bias-adjusted hs-cTn concentrations. Results For 0-h rule-out, hs-cTnI-S and hs-cTnT had a sensitivity of 99.0%, compared to 97.7% for hs-cTnI-A. After adding the bias, sensitivity was unchanged for hs-cTnI-S (99.5%), but lower for hs-cTnT (95.5%), and hs-cTnI-A (96.2%). For the 0-/1-h algorithm, adding bias reduced sensitivity to 95.5% for hs-cTnT, while both hs-cTnI algorithms were unchanged (100.0%). Rule-out proportions for 0 h ranged from 0% to 60.0% for hs-cTnT, 28.2%–62.7% for hs-cTnI-A, and 3.5%–35.5% for hs-cTnI-S. For the 0-/1-h algorithm, ranges were 57.7%–75.8% (hs-cTnT), 52.8%–67.5% (hs-cTnI-A), and 45.7%–61.2% (hs-cTnI-S), Conclusion Analytical bias of hs-cTn assays affects the clinical rule-out rate of the 0/1-h ADPs more than the diagnostic sensitivity. Bias may have a greater influence on the proportion of patients requiring hospital admission and may contribute to the heterogeneity of the reported rule-out rates of current ADPs. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number: NCT02620202

Read Full Paperexternally

Demander à l'IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper