Knauer, Michael

Background: In the emergency setting, many diagnostic pathways incorporate change in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) concentrations (i.e., the delta) to classify patients as low-risk (rule-out) or high-risk (rule-in) for possible myocardial infarction (MI). However, the impact of analytical variation on the delta for correct classification is unknown, especially at concentrations below and around the 99th percentile. Our objective was to assess the impact of delta variation for correct risk classification across the European Society of Cardiology (ESC 0/1 h and 0/2 h), the High-STEACS, and the common change criteria (3C) pathways. Methods: A yearlong accuracy study for hs-cTnT was performed where laboratories across Canada tested three patient-based samples (level 1 target value = 6 ng/L, level 2 target value = 9 ng/L, level 3 target value = 12 ng/L) monthly across 41 different analyzers. The assigned low-delta between levels 1 and 2 was 3 ng/L (i.e., 9 − 6 = 3 ng/L) and the assigned high-delta between levels 1 and 3 was 6 ng/L (i.e., 12 − 6 = 6 ng/L). The low- and high-deltas for each analyzer were determined monthly from the measured values, with the difference calculated from the assigned deltas. The obtained deltas were then assessed via the different pathways on correct classification (i.e., percent correct with 95% confidence intervals, CI) and using non-parametric analyses. Results: The median (interquartile range) difference between the measured versus assigned low-delta (n = 436) and high-delta (n = 439) was −1 ng/L (−1 to 0). The correct classification differed among the pathways. The ESC 0/1 h pathway yielded the lowest percentage of correct classification at 35.3% (95% CI: 30.8 to 40.0) for the low-delta and 90.0% (95% CI: 86.8 to 92.6) for the high-delta. The 3C and ESC 0/2 h pathways yielded higher and equivalent estimates on correct classification: 95.2% (95% CI: 92.7 to 97.0) for the low-delta and 98.2% (95% CI: 96.4 to 99.2) for the high-delta. The High-STEACS pathway yielded 99.5% (95% CI: 98.4 to 99.9) of correct classifications for the high-delta but only 36.2% (95% CI: 31.7 to 40.9) for the low-delta. Conclusions: Analytical variation will impact risk classification for MI when using hs-cTn deltas alone per the pathways. The 3C and ESC 0/2 h pathways have <5% misclassification when using deltas for hs-cTnT in this dataset. Additional studies with different hs-cTnI assays at concentrations below and near the 99th percentile are warranted to confirm these findings.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the production, distribution, and demand of essential laboratory supplies worldwide. In 2021, severe shortages in required laboratory supplies such as blood collection tubes, butterfly needles, and blood gas syringes became a critical issue across Canada. Many hospitals or institutions had to instruct physicians and patients to limit laboratory testing where possible and, in some cases, required emergency shipments of tubes from alternative vendors or nearby hospitals. Laboratory testing is ubiquitous in managing patients. It is used for screening, diagnosis, and monitoring purposes. With limited blood collection tubes, consideration for restricting non-urgent testing is needed to conserve supply and protect acute care departments that manage critically ill patients. In addition, laboratories across Canada have experienced significant staffing shortages, resulting in an even greater need for appropriate laboratory utilization. Consequently, the Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists (CSCC) and the Canadian Association of Medical Biochemists (CAMB) curated utilization recommendations for both hospital and primary care settings in collaboration with Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC). These recommendations were specifically selected from those previously published by Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC), with impact statements and rationales added to conserve at-risk laboratory resources. Supply chain disruptions of clinical laboratory resources are expected to continue throughout 2022, indicating that now, more than ever, a focus on appropriate laboratory utilization is essential.