Comparison of biomarker strategies for rapid rule out of myocardial infarction in the emergency department using ACC/ESC diagnostic criteria

Ann Clin Biochem 2006;43:273-280
doi:10.1258/000456306777695555
© 2006 Association for Clinical Biochemistry

 

This Article

Full Text (PDF)


Alert me when this article is cited

Alert me if a correction is posted
Services

Email this article to a friend

Similar articles in this journal


Similar articles in PubMed

Alert me to new issues of the journal

Download to citation manager

Citing Articles

Citing Articles via HighWire
Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar

Articles by Collinson, P. O

Articles by Goodacre, S.
Search for Related Content
PubMed

PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking

What’s this?

Original Articles


Paul O Collinson,
David C Gaze,
Francis Morris,
Brian Morris,
Alan Price and
Steve Goodacre


Department of Chemical Pathology, 2nd Floor Jenner Wing, St George’s Hospital, Blackshaw Road, London SW17 0QT, UK;
Clinical Chemistry, Doncaster Royal Infirmary, Doncaster, UK;
Accident and Emergency, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Trust, Sheffield, UK


Objective: Creatine kinase MB isoenzyme (CK-MB) mass and rateof change of CK-MB have been proposed as superior to cardiactroponin measurement for very early exclusion of acute myocardialinfarction (AMI). All three markers were examined prospectivelyin patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) forrule out of AMI.

Methods: Consecutive admissions to the ED with undifferentiated chest pain were initially assessed clinically and by electrocardiography. A total of 786 patients (490 male, median age 52.5 years) considered at low risk of AMI had blood drawn on admission. If the first sample was less than 12 h from onset of chest pain, a second sample was then drawn at least 2 h later and at least 6 h from onset of chest pain. CK-MB mass was measured on the first sample and CK-MB mass and cardiac troponin T (cTnT) were measured on the second sample. Measurement of cTnT was using an Elecsys 2010 with the third generation assay (Roche Diagnostics, Lewes, UK). Assay coefficient of variation (CV) was 5.8% and 5.7% at 0.47 and 11.5 µg/L, respectively, with measuring range 0.01-25.0 µg/L; analytical sensitivity of 0.01 µg/L and functional sensitivity of 0.03 µg/L. CK-MB (mass) was measured by electrochemiluminesence using an Elecsys 2010 (Roche Diagnostics). The assay CV was 4.0% at 5.89 µg/L and 4.1% at 60.5 µg/L, with a detection limit of 0.1 µg/L and an upper measuring limit of 500 µg/L. Myocardial infarction was diagnosed if either sample had a CK-MB of more than 5 µg/L, if there was a change in CK-MB (CK-MB) of more than 1.5 µg/L or if the cTnT was more than 0.05 µg/L. When AMI was excluded, patients proceeded to stress electrocardiography and reattended 72 h from presentation for follow up phlebotomy for cTnT measurement. A final diagnosis of AMI was made according to American College of Cardiology/ European Society of Cardiology criteria using a cut-off of 0.05 µg/L cTnT in any of the samples. Diagnostic efficiency was compared by receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis with comparison of area under the curve (AUC) for four strategies: admission CK-MB measurement; 6-h post-pain CK-MB measurement; CK-MB; and 6-h post-pain cTnT measurement.

Results: On admission the AUC for CK-MB was 0.830 (95% confidenceinterval [CI] 0.757-0.904). At 6 h post pain the respectivevalues were: CK-MB 0.939 (95% CI 0.889-0.988); -CK-MB 0.948(95% CI 0.906-0.990); and cTnT 0.989 (95% CI 0.966-1.0).

Conclusion: cTnT at 6 h has high diagnostic sensitivity for AMI and is superior to CK-MB mass and CK-MB even using a lowcut-off value.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What’s this?






This article has been cited by other articles:



S Goodacre, P Pett, J Arnold, A Chawla, J Hollingsworth, D Roe, S Crowder, C Mann, D Pitcher, and C Brett
Clinical diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome in patients with chest pain and a normal or non-diagnostic electrocardiogram
Emerg. Med. J.,

December 1, 2009;

26(12):

866 – 870.

[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]