Yerna, Marie-Jeanne

Abstract Background: Improvements in cardiac troponin (cTn) assays have increased the rapidity with which clinicians can identify patients with changing cTn concentrations (rise or fall) indicative of acute myocardial injury. The aim of the present study was to characterize a new, high-sensitivity cTnI (hs-cTnI) assay and examine whether increased sensitivity can result in still earlier detection of evolving injury. Methods: We determined the limit of detection, precision profiles, and preliminary estimates of the 99th percentile for the Beckman Coulter hs-cTnI assay in 125 healthy individuals (age <55 years, 54% male). We compared AccuTnI® and hs-cTnI to assess whether change criteria for early concentration changes (i.e., ≥3SD for low concentrations and 20% difference for concentrations >0.10 μg/L) were exceeded in the first 2 specimens (median time between specimens, 1 h; 25th–75th percentile, 1–3 h) from subjects with symptoms suggestive of cardiac ischemia (n = 290). Results: The limit of detection for the hs-cTnI assay was 2.06 ng/L, and the 20% CV and 10% CV concentrations were 2.95 and 8.66 ng/L, respectively. The preliminary 99th percentile estimates in lithium heparin, serum, and EDTA plasma were 9.20, 8.00, and 8.60 ng/L, respectively. In 108 patients with myocardial injury based on the peak AccuTnI concentration, applying the change criteria on the 2 earliest specimens identified 81% (95% CI 73%–88%) of patients using the hs-cTnI assay compared to 62% (53%–71%) using the AccuTnI assay (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Although more extensive validation studies are required, this Beckman Coulter hs-cTnI assay appears to detect patients with evolving myocardial injury earlier.

Abstract Background: The American Heart Association (AHA) case definition for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) requires an “adequate set” of biomarkers: 2 measurements of the same marker at least 6 h apart. A sensitive troponin assay might detect significant changes in concentration earlier. We determined AMI prevalence, using protocols with shorter intervals between measurements, with and without incorporating the time from onset of symptoms. Methods: The AHA case definition was used to retrospectively assign a diagnosis in 258 patients presenting to the emergency department with symptoms of cardiac ischemia. AMI was diagnosed if either specimen in an adequate set had a cardiac troponin I (cTnI) above the 99th percentile (AccuTnI® >0.04 μg/L; Beckman Coulter) with a ≥20% change in concentration between specimens. We assessed positivity for AMI after progressively decreasing the time interval between specimens in specimen sets. In addition, for each patient, 2 additional specimen pairs were selected: pairs collected at least 1 h apart with 1 specimen being either ≥3 h after onset or ≥6 h after onset. Results: When we used the AHA definition, the AMI prevalence was 35.7%. Prevalence was not significantly diminished when the interval between specimens was ≥5, ≥4, or ≥3 h (36.4%, 34.5%, and 33.7%, respectively) compared with the AHA ≥6 h interval. When the time from onset of symptoms was included in the specimen selection algorithm, a 1-h interval was sufficient provided that at least one specimen was collected ≥6 h after onset (prevalence, 34.1%; P = 0.48 vs AHA definition). Conclusion: A sensitive cTnI assay in specimen sets with time intervals ≥3 h, or having one specimen ≥6 h after onset, gave an AMI prevalence equivalent to the AHA definition.