Why the study?
Does a higher cut-off value for the hs-cTnT assay improve diagnostic accuracy for AMI in high-risk cardiology in-patients compared to the standard 99th percentile cut-off?
Does a higher cut-off value for the hs-cTnT assay improve diagnostic accuracy for AMI in high-risk cardiology in-patients compared to the standard 99th percentile cut-off?
In high-risk cardiology in-patients, the standard 99th percentile cut-off for hs-cTnT has poor specificity for AMI, and a higher cut-off (e.g., 75 ng/L) provides better overall diagnostic accuracy.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Standard hs-cTnT cut-off risks low specificity and AMI misclassification in high-risk inpatients; leaves open need for prospective validation of higher thresholds.
PURPOSE: The novel high-sensitivity troponin T assay (hs-cTnT) has been validated for diagnosing AMI in the emergency room. However its utility in high-risk in-patient populations is unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed admissions to a general cardiology unit that had 2 hs-cTnT measurements in the first 12 h of presentation. We assessed 8 diagnostic algorithms that used hs-cTnT concentration and changes in concentration (including the 99th percentile cut-off of 14 ng/L) for their diagnostic utility in separating AMI patients from cardiac/nonACS and non-cardiac chest-pain patients. UA was excluded. RESULTS: There were 233 patients (mean age 67 years, 153 were males (66%)) admitted over a 2 month period, with AMI diagnosed in 118 of these patients (51%). The recommended 99th percentile cut-off had modest accuracy (65%), good sensitivity (88%), and poor specificity (25%); a higher cut-off of 75 ng/L had a better diagnostic accuracy of 73%, p < 0.05. While some hs-cTnT algorithms were either highly sensitive or specific, none were both. CONCLUSION: In high-risk cardiology in-patients, no hs-cTnT concentration cut-off or change more accurately diagnosed and excluded AMI, although higher cut-offs had better diagnostic utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wassef et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: