Why the study?
Does the Advia Centaur second-generation TnI-Ultra assay provide improved sensitivity and precision compared to the first-generation cTnI assay?
Does the Advia Centaur second-generation TnI-Ultra assay provide improved sensitivity and precision compared to the first-generation cTnI assay?
The Advia Centaur second-generation TnI-Ultra assay provides significantly improved sensitivity and meets guideline requirements for total imprecision at the 99th percentile limit compared to the first-generation assay.
TnI-Ultra meets guideline imprecision at the 99th percentile; leaves open whether this improves diagnostic performance or outcomes in suspected ACS.
BACKGROUND: A cardiac troponin concentration above the 99th percentile limit of a reference population is a sensitive marker of myocardial necrosis. Current guidelines require troponin assays to have a total imprecision of < or =10% at the 99th percentile limit. In this study, the Advia Centaur second-generation TnI-Ultra assay was validated and compared with its predecessor the cardiac troponin I (cTnI) assay, with a focus on the current guidelines for diagnosis of acute myocardial damage. METHODS: An imprecision profile of the TnI-Ultra assay was evaluated by analysing different pools over 20 days. The imprecision of the cTnI assay was used as comparison. The reference range was established based on TnI-Ultra analysis in 221 individuals. RESULTS: The cTnI concentration that could be determined with a total imprecision of 10% was 0.05 microg/L for the TnI-Ultra assay and 0.3 microg/L for the cTnI assay. The 99th percentile limit in the distribution of a reference population was 0.06 microg/L as determined with the TnI-Ultra assay. CONCLUSIONS: The TnI-Ultra assay provides significantly improved sensitivity when compared with the cTnI assay and a total imprecision of < or =10% is obtained at the 99th percentile limit of value distribution of a reference population. Using the TnI-Ultra assay, slightly increased cTnI concentration can be detected reliably following the current guidelines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kerkhof et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: