Key result
The Abbott high-sensitivity cTnI assay yielded a similar proportion of patients with cTnI concentrations above the 99th percentile compared to a contemporary assay (26% vs 31%, P=0.09).
Why the study?
Does the use of a high-sensitivity cTnI assay compared to a contemporary assay change the proportion of undetectable, measurable, and increased cTnI concentrations in patients presenting to the emergency department?
Observational (n=2,100)
Does the use of a high-sensitivity cTnI assay compared to a contemporary assay change the proportion of undetectable, measurable, and increased cTnI concentrations in patients presenting to the emergency department?
Absolute Event Rate: 26% vs 31%
p-value: p=0.09
The use of a high-sensitivity cTnI assay in the emergency department provides more numeric (measurable) concentrations without significantly increasing the number of results above the 99th percentile compared to a contemporary assay.
Hs-cTnI may increase measurable values in ED patients without more elevations above 99th percentile; leaves open effects on diagnosis and outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: We compared the incidence of undetectable [below the limit of detection (LoD)], measurable (LoD to 99th percentile), and increased cardiac troponin I (cTnI) concentrations above the 99th percentile between Abbott high-sensitivity cTnI (hs-cTnI) and contemporary cTnI assays in a US emergency department population. METHODS: Patients (n = 2100) presenting to the emergency department who had serial cTnI (0, 3, 6, 9 h) measurements ordered on clinical indication were enrolled. Contemporary cTnI [Abbott Architect used clinically; 99th percentile: 0.030 μg/L (30 ng/L)] and hs-cTnI [Abbott investigational; sex-specific 99th percentiles: female (F) 16 ng/L, male (M) 34 ng/L] assays simultaneously measured fresh EDTA plasma. RESULTS: The hs-cTnI assay measured fewer undetectable cTnI concentrations compared to the contemporary cTnI assay across baseline (F: 31% vs 47%, M: 22% vs 40%) and serial (F: 21% vs 46%; M: 19% vs 54%) measurements. Conversely, the proportion of measurable cTnI concentrations was higher using hs-cTnI compared to contemporary cTnI assay across both baseline (F: 46% vs 31%; M: 60% vs 33%) and serial (F: 48% vs 28%; M: 83% vs 40%) measurements. The overall proportion of patients with increased cTnI concentrations above the 99th percentile was not significantly different between the contemporary (31%) and hs-cTnI (26%) assays (P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting to the emergency department, the use of the Abbott hs-cTnI assay provides clinicians with more numeric cTnI concentrations. This occurs via a shift from results below the LoD to those between the LoD and the 99th percentile and does not increase in the number of cTnI concentrations above the 99th percentile.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Love et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Emergency department presentation requiring serial cTnI (n=2,100). Abbott high-sensitivity cTnI (hs-cTnI) assay vs. Contemporary cTnI assay (Abbott Architect) was evaluated on Proportion of patients with increased cTnI concentrations above the 99th percentile (p=0.09). The Abbott high-sensitivity cTnI assay yielded a similar proportion of patients with cTnI concentrations above the 99th percentile compared to a contemporary assay (26% vs 31%, P=0.09).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: