{"title":"Comparison of point-of-care and laboratory troponin I assays.","authors":"A. Markota, M. Bernhardt, M. Palfy","doi":"10.6016/655","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nIn recent years a number of pointof- care troponin assays have emerged. There have been reports of discrepancies between the results of point-of-care and laboratory assays. We sought to compare the results of point-ofcare and laboratory troponin I assays in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes.\n\nMETHODS\nA retrospective study was performed comparing the results of point-of-care (i-STAT cardiac troponin I test, Abbott Point of Care) and laboratory troponin I analysis in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome treated in the Internal Medicine Emergency Department, University Medical Centre Maribor, between 23 November and 21 December 2010, who had blood samples drawn simultaneously for pointof- care and laboratory troponin I analysis.\n\nRESULTS\n112 patients were included in the analysis. There was an agreement between the results of point-of-care and laboratory troponin analysis in 105 (93.8 %) patients. If we consider the laboratory results as »gold standard« (diagnosis was based on laboratory troponin results), then 6 (5.4 %) false negative results and 1 (0.9 %) false positive result were found (sensitivity 81.2 %, specificity 98.7 %). However, there was no statistically significant difference between point-of-care and laboratory troponin I analysis (p = 0.125).\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nWe detected lower sensitivity of point-of-care assay, but there was no statistically significant difference between point-of-care and laboratory troponin I analysis. We adopted a strategy of using point-of-care troponin assay primarily in patients at high-risk for acute coronary syndrome without ST elevation.","PeriodicalId":49350,"journal":{"name":"Zdravniski Vestnik-Slovenian Medical Journal","volume":"17 1","pages":"905-908"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zdravniski Vestnik-Slovenian Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6016/655","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND
In recent years a number of pointof- care troponin assays have emerged. There have been reports of discrepancies between the results of point-of-care and laboratory assays. We sought to compare the results of point-ofcare and laboratory troponin I assays in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes.
METHODS
A retrospective study was performed comparing the results of point-of-care (i-STAT cardiac troponin I test, Abbott Point of Care) and laboratory troponin I analysis in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome treated in the Internal Medicine Emergency Department, University Medical Centre Maribor, between 23 November and 21 December 2010, who had blood samples drawn simultaneously for pointof- care and laboratory troponin I analysis.
RESULTS
112 patients were included in the analysis. There was an agreement between the results of point-of-care and laboratory troponin analysis in 105 (93.8 %) patients. If we consider the laboratory results as »gold standard« (diagnosis was based on laboratory troponin results), then 6 (5.4 %) false negative results and 1 (0.9 %) false positive result were found (sensitivity 81.2 %, specificity 98.7 %). However, there was no statistically significant difference between point-of-care and laboratory troponin I analysis (p = 0.125).
CONCLUSIONS
We detected lower sensitivity of point-of-care assay, but there was no statistically significant difference between point-of-care and laboratory troponin I analysis. We adopted a strategy of using point-of-care troponin assay primarily in patients at high-risk for acute coronary syndrome without ST elevation.
背景:近年来出现了许多护理点肌钙蛋白检测方法。有报告称,现场检测结果和实验室检测结果之间存在差异。我们试图比较疑似急性冠状动脉综合征患者的即时护理和实验室肌钙蛋白I检测结果。方法回顾性比较2010年11月23日至12月21日在马里博尔大学医学中心内科急诊科治疗的疑似急性冠状动脉综合征患者的即时(I - stat心脏肌钙蛋白I检测,雅培即时(Abbott Point of Care))和实验室肌钙蛋白I分析结果,这些患者同时抽取血液进行即时和实验室肌钙蛋白I分析。结果112例患者纳入分析。105例(93.8%)患者的现场肌钙蛋白分析结果与实验室肌钙蛋白分析结果一致。如果我们将实验室结果视为“金标准”(诊断基于实验室肌钙蛋白结果),则发现6例(5.4%)假阴性结果和1例(0.9%)假阳性结果(敏感性81.2%,特异性98.7%)。然而,现场护理和实验室肌钙蛋白I分析之间没有统计学上的显著差异(p = 0.125)。结论:定点护理法的敏感性较低,但定点护理法与实验室肌钙蛋白I分析的差异无统计学意义。我们采用即时肌钙蛋白检测的策略,主要用于无ST段抬高的急性冠状动脉综合征高危患者。