Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Oxford University Press, Clinical Chemistry, 7(70), p. 967-977, 2024

DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/hvae059

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Determination of Clinically Acceptable Analytical Variation of Cardiac Troponin at Decision Thresholds

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Abstract Background Clinical decision-making for risk stratification for possible myocardial infarction (MI) uses high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) thresholds that range from the limit of detection to several-fold higher than the upper reference limit (URL). To establish a minimum analytical variation standard, we can quantify the effect of variation on the population clinical measures of safety (sensitivity) and effectiveness [proportion below threshold, or positive predictive value (PPV)]. Methods From large datasets of patients investigated for possible MI with the Abbott hs-cTnI and Roche hs-cTnT assays, we synthesized datasets of 1 000 000 simulated patients. Troponin concentrations were randomly varied several times based on absolute deviations of 0.5 to 3 ng/L and relative changes of 2% to 20% around the low-risk threshold (5 ng/L) and URLs, respectively. Results For both assays at the low-risk thresholds, there were negligible differences in sensitivity (<0.3%) with increasing analytical variation. The proportion of patients characterized as low risk reduced by 30% to 29% (Roche) and 53% to 44% (Abbott). At the URL, increasing analytical variation also did not change sensitivity; the PPV fell by less than 3%. For risk stratification, increased delta thresholds (change between serial troponin concentrations) increased sensitivity at the cost of a decreased percentage of patients below the delta threshold, with the largest changes at the greatest analytical variation. Conclusions At the low-risk threshold, analytical variation up to 3 ng/L minimally impacted the safety metric (sensitivity) but marginally reduced effectiveness. Similarly, at the URL even relative variation up to 25% minimally impacted safety metrics and effectiveness. Analytical variation for delta thresholds did not negatively impact sensitivity but decreased effectiveness.