Key result
Comparison of hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT assays showed a significant relationship (slope 3.07) but direct recalculation is impossible, with only 63% classification agreement for the ESC 1-hour algorithm.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to determine the limiting factors for switching between hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI assays in a real-world clinical setting.
Does hs-cTnI show sufficient agreement with hs-cTnT for rule-in and rule-out diagnostics in urgent cardiology admission patients?
Observational (n=567)
Single-blind
No
Does hs-cTnI show sufficient agreement with hs-cTnT for rule-in and rule-out diagnostics in urgent cardiology admission patients?
Effect estimate: slope 3.07 (95% CI 2.77-3.40)
p-value: p=<0.001
There is a strong correlation (r=0.934) between hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI assays in acute cardiology patients, allowing for mathematical conversion between the two high-sensitivity methods.
Strong correlation permits assay conversion in research; leaves open interchangeability for rule-in/rule-out in acute settings.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jabor et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Suspected acute coronary syndrome (n=567). High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) vs. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) was evaluated on Method comparison between hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT (Passing-Bablok regression) (slope 3.07, 95% CI 2.77-3.40, p=<0.001). Comparison of hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT assays showed a significant relationship (slope 3.07) but direct recalculation is impossible, with only 63% classification agreement for the ESC 1-hour algorithm.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: