MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613779203 · doi:10.1373/jalm.2017.023648

The Era for High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin Has Begun in the US (Finally)

2017· article· en· W2613779203 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan H.B. Wu, Robert H. Christenson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoche DiagnosticsFood and drug administrationMedicineTroponin complexTroponinPopulationInternal medicineCardiologyPharmacologyMyocardial infarctionEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On January 19, 2017, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)3 announced the clearance of Roche Diagnostics Gen 5 STAT cardiac troponin T assay in the US (1). This is the first of what is likely to be many next-generation or perhaps high-sensitivity (hs) cardiac troponin (cTn) assays released in the next few years. The Roche Diagnostics Gen 5 assay has been available in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Canada for 7 years. The 99th percentile cutoff limit has been changed from <0.010 ng/mL (10 ng/L) for the 4th generation cardiac troponin T (cTnT) assay to sex-specific cutoffs of 14 ng/L (0.014 ng/mL) for women, 22 ng/L (0.022 ng/mL) for men, and 19 ng/L (0.019 ng/mL) for both sexes for the 5th generation. (Note: a value of 10 ng/L with the 4th generation assay will read closer to 30 ng/L with the 5th generation assay.) As with assays for other analytes, each hospital may need to establish their own sex-specific cutoffs based on their study population. Use of this assay and cutoffs will enable an earlier detection and rule-out of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) of patents who present to the emergency department (ED) with AMI signs and symptoms and detect more patients at risk for future adverse cardiac events. One immediate consequence of implementing hs-cTn assays will be the conversion of reporting units from nanograms per milliliter to nanograms per liter, which enable reporting of values to whole numbers (2). Many believe that reporting whole numbers will decrease the opportunity for error for interpreting cTnT values. Many of our colleagues in laboratory medicine, EDs, and cardiology have questioned the need and value for an hs-cTn assay and use of low values for the 99th percentile cutoff limit. The opponents to hs-cTn assays argue that implementation will greatly diminish the clinical specificity for diagnosis of AMI by detecting more patients who have mild increases in cTn concentrations (3). This notion is correct if cTn is considered only as a marker of acute coronary syndromes. However, it is important to note that cTn is a heart-specific biomarker, not a disease-specific biomarker. Thus, to fully understand the value of cTn, one must consider cTn as a marker of cardiac injury, not just ischemic damage from an AMI. In this context, increased results are highly specific for this condition. In fact, the assignment of a laboratory test to just a single medical indication is atypical. For example, an increase in the liver enzyme alkaline phosphatase is a powerful indicator of obstructive liver disease, but does not allow a hepatologist to necessarily indicate the presence of gallstones. Optimum use of hs-cTn for the diagnosis of AMI must take into consideration other evidence, such as symptoms, history, and other tests such as the electrocardiogram. Documentation of a rise and/or fall in biomarkers after serial testing is also essential for the diagnosis of AMI. Is there value in detecting myocardial injury in the absence of AMI? This concept has been explored in a number of clinical venues including heart failure, renal failure, sepsis, pulmonary embolism, cancer chemotherapy, and other situations. It has been consistently shown that an increase in cTn is associated with future adverse cardiac events, suggesting that cardiac injury is never benign (4). Perhaps the most significant medical advance that hs-cTn offers is AMI rule-out. Sandoval et al. (5) showed that hs-cTn result below the limit of detection had a 99% negative predictive value. Reichlin et al. (6) showed that 60% of patients could be ruled out within 1 h using a δ cTnT cutoff of 3 ng/L with 100% negative predictive value. Similar 1-h rule-out results have been demonstrated with hs-cardiac troponin I (cTnI) assays (7) that have not yet been cleared by the FDA. The European Society of Cardiology has recommended a 1-h AMI rule-out protocol based on serial hs-cTn measurements on patients who have no evidence of ischemia on an electrocardiogram, with an expectation of producing a 99% negative predictive value (8). Implementation of a 1-h rule-out protocol in the US would have a significant impact on ED overcrowding. However, Pickering et al. (9) showed that the clinical sensitivity for hs-cTnT for a 1-h testing protocol was only 97% on 2222 patients studied. This higher missed AMI rate is likely to be unacceptable in the US, since there is a higher rate of malpractice lawsuits in this country (10). Roche Diagnostics does not support a 1- or 2-h rule-out protocol in their product literature. Irrespective of implementing hs-cTnT today or hs-cTnI in the near future, it will be necessary to implement high-sensitivity assays with caution and attention towards prospective communication and education. Optimum implementation of high-sensitivity troponin begins with a discussion among the important stakeholders, such as ED physicians and cardiologists, regarding the expectations of implementing high-sensitivity assays. They must be told that there will be reduced clinical specificity, i.e., increased number of patients with abnormal cTn values who do not have acute ischemic injury. Once implemented, this must be followed by continuing education of medical staff, ideally with examples of patients that they have encountered at their facility. There may be a desire to offer both conventional and high-sensitivity results, but this practice should be discouraged. It doubles the cost of testing, reduces the turnaround time, and likely causes more confusion than value. Use of hs-cTn assays requires more adherence to collecting serial blood collections to adjudicate mildly increased values that would have been within the reference range for cTn assays of conventional sensitivity. It will be poor medical practice to admit all ED patients on the sole basis of a single cTn value above the 99th percentile. Trust in the value of cTn by cardiology will quickly erode if these patients are sent to the cardiac catheterization laboratory and return with a report of clean arteries. The clearance of hs-cTnT assays will likely result in the use of this test for cardiac risk assessment among asymptomatic patients, not just those who present to the ED with chest pain. Detection of subclinical myocardial damage has been suggested to be an indicator of left ventricular dysfunction. In the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, patients with cTn values exceeding 3 ng/L (well below the 99th percentile limit of 14 ng/L) had a 2.3-fold risk for mortality and heart failure (11). We have discussed the analytical caveats and clinical potential for hs-cTn in this context (12). This clinical utility can finally be realized in the US with clearance of the hs-cTnT assay. Food and Drug Administration high-sensitivity cardiac troponin cardiac troponin T acute myocardial infarction emergency department cardiac troponin I.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.012

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Applied Laboratory MedicineSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207