Cross-Sectional (n=533)
Yes
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Despite near-universal adoption of cardiac troponin as the preferred biomarker for myocardial infarction, significant regional differences exist between Europe and North America regarding the derivation of decision limits and assay evaluation practices.
BACKGROUND: We undertook an assessment of current use of evidence-based guidelines for the use of cardiac biomarkers in Europe (EU) and North America (NA). METHODS: In 2013-2014 a web-based questionnaire was distributed via NA and EU biochemical societies. Questions covered cardiac biomarkers measured, analytical methods used, decision thresholds, and use of decision-making protocols. Results were collated using a central database and analyzed using comparative and descriptive nonparametric statistics. RESULTS: In EU, returns were obtained from 442 hospitals, 50% central or university hospitals, and 39% from local hospitals from 35 countries with 395/442 (89%) provided an acute service. In NA there were 91 responses (63.7% central or university hospitals, 19.8% community hospitals) with 76/91 (83.5%) providing an acute service. Cardiac troponin was the preferred cardiac biomarker in 99.5% (EU) and 98.7% (NA), and the first line marker in 97.7% (EU) and 97.4% (NA). There were important differences in the choice of decision limits and their derivations. The origin of the information was also significantly different, with EU vs NA as follows: package insert, 61.9% vs 40%; publications, 17.1% vs 15.0%; local clinical or analytical validation choice, 21.0% vs 45.0%; P = 0.0003. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences between EU and NA use of cardiac biomarkers. This probably relates to different availability of assays between EU and NA (such as high-sensitivity troponin assays) and different laboratory practices on assay introduction (greater local evaluation of assay performance occurred in NA).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Collinson et al. (2016) conducted a cross-sectional in Myocardial Infarction (n=533). Laboratory practices for cardiac biomarkers vs. Europe vs North America was evaluated on Origin of information for decision limits (local clinical or analytical validation choice) (p=0.0003). Laboratory practices for cardiac biomarker decision limits differed significantly between Europe and North America, with local validation used in 21.0% vs 45.0% of hospitals, respectively (P=0.0003).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: