This study defines the 99th centile values for H-FABP using two different assays, demonstrating that levels increase with age and renal dysfunction but not gender, which can aid in risk stratification for acute coronary syndrome.
Establishes assay-specific H-FABP 99th centiles varying by age and renal function; leaves open their role in ACS risk stratification without prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: We have previously demonstrated that heart-type fatty acid binding protein (H-FABP) is an independent prognostic marker for survival after acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This study aimed to define the 99th centile values for H-FABP as determined with two different assays, and to study the relationship with age, gender and renal function. METHODS: H-FABP was measured on redundant routine outpatient samples using the MARKIT-M (Dainippon) and the Evidence Investigator (Randox) assays. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-two subjects with Siemens Ultra-TnI value <0.045 microg/L (99th centile) were studied. In all, 174 subjects had estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) >60 mL/min. The 99th centile values for subjects with eGFR >60 mL/min for the Evidence Investigator H-FABP were 5.3 and 5.8 microg/L and for the MARKIT-M H-FABP were 8.3 and 9.1 microg/L in female and male subjects, respectively. There is an increase in H-FABP with age in subjects with normal renal function for both assays. Gender comparison showed no significant difference for either assay. Comparison of samples showed that subjects with eGFR <60 mL/min showed a median increase of 0.71 microg/L with Evidence Investigator assay and 1.09 microg/L with MARKIT-M assay compared with subjects with eGFR >60 mL/min. Calibration differences were confirmed by cross measurement of calibrators and recombinant H-FABP. CONCLUSIONS: We have defined the 99th centile values for H-FABP in a population of primary and secondary care outpatients that can be used to risk stratify patients with ACS. We have confirmed that H-FABP increases with renal dysfunction and age, but have not confirmed the gender difference previously reported.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bathia et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: