Key result
Seven commercially available methods for CK-MB determination showed satisfactory analytical quality but limited diagnostic comparability, with significant variation in positive and negative results.
Why the study?
How do different commercially available methods for CK-MB determination compare in patients suspected of acute myocardial infarction?
Observational (n=100)
How do different commercially available methods for CK-MB determination compare in patients suspected of acute myocardial infarction?
Different commercially available CK-MB assays show satisfactory analytical quality but significant diagnostic variability, necessitating laboratory-specific reference ranges.
Laboratories should adopt method-specific CK-MB cutoffs; leaves open assay standardization for consistent AMI diagnosis.
Seven methods commercially available involving different principles for determination of creatine kinase (E.C. 2.7.3.2) isoenzyme MB were compared. The methods employ quantitative electrophoresis, column chromatography, batch chromatography, and antibody inhibition techniques. Blood from 100 patients suspected of acute myocardial infarction was used to test the following factors: sensitivity, linearity, precision, accuracy, simplicity, and diagnostic comparability. The analytical quality of all the techniques investigated was almost satisfactory, and only minor differences were found in linearity and precision. The diagnostic quality was, however, somewhat limited. The number of positive and negative results varied significantly. The reference value given by the manufacturers did not agree, and each laboratory must establish its own reference ranges.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grande et al. (1983) conducted an observational in suspected acute myocardial infarction (n=100). Seven methods for CK-MB determination was evaluated on sensitivity, linearity, precision, accuracy, simplicity, and diagnostic comparability. Seven commercially available methods for CK-MB determination showed satisfactory analytical quality but limited diagnostic comparability, with significant variation in positive and negative results.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: