Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Use of troponins in clinical practice: Evidence in favour of use of troponins in clinical practice
  1. Paul O Collinson1,
  2. Fred Apple2,
  3. Allan S Jaffe3
  1. 1 Clinical Blood Sciences and Cardiology, St Georges University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and St Georges's University of London, London, UK
  2. 2 Hennepin County Medical Center University of Minnesota - School of Medicine, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  3. 3 Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Paul O Collinson, St Georges Hospital, London SW17 0QT, UK; paul.collinson{at}stgeorges.nhs.uk

Statistics from Altmetric.com

All troponin assays are equal but some assays are more equal than others (with apologies to George Orwell).

Measurement of cardiac troponin (cTn) using ‘high sensitivity’ cTn (hs-cTn) assays is supported by evidence-based medicine and is incorporated into the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology1 as well as the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (2018).2 The majority of diagnostic companies have launched or are in the process of launching cTn assays into routine clinical practice and for use in research trials, which meet the criteria for high sensitivity. A high sensitivity assay is defined analytically3 by the ability to measure at least 50% of a reference population and an imprecision (coefficient of variation (%CV)) <10% at the 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL). In clinical practice, the imprecision of measurement at the 99th percentile for most assays is typically much lower, <5%, and the limit of detection of the assay (the concentration which can be reliably distinguished from background noise) is very low.

The advent of hs-cTn assays moving globally into routine clinical and research use is associated with a number of challenges. For front-line clinicians, there needs to be acceptance that these assays are exceptionally sensitive tools for the detection of myocardial injury but as has always been the case, myocardial injury does not always equate with myocardial infarction (MI). Indeed, with hs-cTn assays, MI subsumes only a modest percentage of the increases observed.4 For laboratory medicine, there are challenges with service delivery based on the use of diagnostic algorithms incorporating an admission measurement with repeat measurement at 1–3 hours post-admission.1 For journals, including readers, editors and their reviewers, there is also the challenge of understanding and educating hs-cTn users on the nature of the improved analytics of hs-assays, how they differ from …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors All the authors contributed to the final form of the MS.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests The authors are all members of the International Federation of Clinical Chemists Committee on Clinical Applications of Cardiac Bio-Markers (C-CB).

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles