The new chemiluminescent cardiac troponin I assay on the ACS:180 analyzer demonstrates good analytical performance and correlates well with existing immunoassays.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support ACS:180 troponin I assay adoption in labs; leaves open clinical outcome validation.
Cardiac troponin I is a marker for diagnosis of myocardial damage. Several immunoassays are currently available for determination of concentrations of troponin I in serum. We evaluated a chemiluminescent assay for troponin I using ACS:180 automated analyzer (Bayer Diagnostics). We compared our results with two other immunoassays using the OPUS Magnum (OPUS troponin I assay, Dade Behring) and AxSYM (microparticle enzyme immunoassay, Abbott) analyzers. The within-run and between-run CVs were less than 5% for all three levels of controls. The chemiluminescent assay for troponin I was linear up to a serum troponin I concentration of 50 ng/mL and the detection limit was 0.1 ng/mL of troponin. A good correlation between troponin I concentration measured by the chemiluminescent assay (y axis) and the microparticle enzyme immunoassay (MEIA) (x axis) was observed, although the concentrations of troponin I in individual specimens were approximately four times higher, when measured by the MEIA assay, than those measured by chemiluminescent assay. The correlation coefficient was 0.98 with the regression equation y = 0.22x + 1.125. We also observed a good correlation in troponin I concentrations obtained by the chemiluminescent assay (y axis) and OPUS troponin I assay (x axis). The correlation coefficient was 0.96 and the regression equation was y = 0.79x - 0.52. The correlation coefficient was 0.93 when we compared troponin I concentrations obtained by the OPUS assay (x axis) with the corresponding concentrations obtained by the MEIA assay (y axis). The corresponding regression equation was y = 0.25x + 3.5. We conclude that the chemiluminescent troponin I assay showed good analytical performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dasgupta et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: