Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • Clinical Chemistry
    • Editorial Board
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Alerts
    • CE Credits
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Early Release
    • Future Table of Contents
    • Archive
    • Browse by Subject
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Permissions & Reprints
  • Resources
    • AACC Learning Lab
    • Clinical Chemistry Trainee Council
    • Clinical Case Studies
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Manuscript Review
    • Journal Club
    • Podcasts
    • Q&A
    • Translated Content
  • Abstracts
  • Submit
  • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Chemistry
  • Other Publications
    • The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Clinical Chemistry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • About
    • Clinical Chemistry
    • Editorial Board
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Alerts
    • CE Credits
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Early Release
    • Future Table of Contents
    • Archive
    • Browse by Subject
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Permissions & Reprints
  • Resources
    • AACC Learning Lab
    • Clinical Chemistry Trainee Council
    • Clinical Case Studies
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Manuscript Review
    • Journal Club
    • Podcasts
    • Q&A
    • Translated Content
  • Abstracts
  • Submit
  • Contact
Research ArticleArticle

High-Sensitivity Troponin T vs I in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Prediction of Significant Coronary Lesions and Long-term Prognosis

Brede Kvisvik, Lars Mørkrid, Helge Røsjø, Milada Cvancarova, Alexander D. Rowe, Christian Eek, Bjørn Bendz, Thor Edvardsen, Jørgen Gravning
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2016.261107 Published January 2017
Brede Kvisvik
Department of Cardiology, Division of Medicine, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway. Center for Heart Failure Research, University of Oslo, Norway.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lars Mørkrid
Department of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, and Institute for Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helge Røsjø
Department of Cardiology, Division of Medicine, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway. Center for Heart Failure Research, University of Oslo, Norway.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Milada Cvancarova
Department of Cardiology, Division of Medicine, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander D. Rowe
Department of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, and Institute for Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway. Norwegian National Unit for newborn screening, Woman and Children‘s division, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christian Eek
Department of Cardiology, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bjørn Bendz
Department of Cardiology, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thor Edvardsen
Center for Heart Failure Research, University of Oslo, Norway. Department of Cardiology, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jørgen Gravning
Department of Cardiology, Division of Medicine, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway. Center for Heart Failure Research, University of Oslo, Norway.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: j.a.gravning@medisin.uio.no
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND: High-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) T and I assays are established as crucial tools for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), as they have been found superior to old troponin assays. However, eventual differences between the assays in prediction of significant coronary lesions and long-term prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have not been fully unraveled.

METHODS: Serum concentrations of hs-cTnT (Roche), hs-cTnI (Abbott), and amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP; Roche) in 390 non-ST-elevation (NSTE) ACS patients were evaluated in relation to significant coronary lesions on coronary angiography (defined as a stenosis >50% of the luminal diameter, with need for revascularization) and prognostic accuracy for cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, as well as the composite end point of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalizations for AMI or heart failure.

RESULTS: The mean (SD) follow-up was 2921 (168) days. Absolute hs-cTnI concentrations were significantly higher than the hs-cTnT concentrations. The relationship between analyzed biomarkers and significant coronary lesions on coronary angiography, as quantified by the area under the ROC curve (AUC), revealed no difference between hs-cTnT [AUC, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77–0.86] and hs-cTnI (AUC, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76–0.86; P = NS). NT-proBNP was superior to both hs-cTn assays regarding prognostic accuracy for both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality and for the composite end point during follow-up, also in multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS: The hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI assays displayed a similar ability to predict significant coronary lesions in NSTE-ACS patients. NT-proBNP was superior to both hs-cTn assays as a marker of long-term prognosis in this patient group.

The definition of acute myocardial infarction (AMI)6 continues to evolve as more sensitive biomarkers are developed (1). Measurement of cardiac troponins (cTns) has become important in the diagnosis of AMI (2), and rapid identification of AMI is essential for the initiation of effective treatment and management (1, 3).

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays have recently been shown to be superior to conventional cTn assays for the early diagnosis of AMI (4, 5). Current guidelines recommend the use of a cTn cutoff-concentration at the 99th percentile of healthy controls, together with a rise and/or fall pattern (1, 2, 6). The measurement of hs-cTn should be made at admission and repeated 3–6 h later (2, 7, 8). Owing to increased but stable concentrations of cTn in some chronic diseases, dynamic changes become a critical part of the AMI diagnosis (9, 10). However, it is essential to separate dynamic changes resulting from AMI from dynamic changes associated with analytical imprecision or normal chronobiological variation (1, 11).

Only 2 hs-cTn assays are currently available for clinical use in Europe [hs-cardiac troponin T (cTnT) (Roche Diagnostics) and hs-cardiac troponin I (cTnI) (Abbott Laboratories)]. Studies have unveiled that both assays have high accuracy in early diagnosis of AMI, as well as a high negative predictive value for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (4, 12, 13, 14). Since both assays are in clinical use, direct comparison of the two is of considerable clinical importance, as differences might be relevant for clinical utility (15). Accordingly, the present study aimed to directly compare the performance of hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI as biomarkers of clinically significant coronary lesions and long-term prognosis in patients with non-ST elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). Further, we wanted to elucidate if differences in performance between the 2 assays most likely relate to biological differences between the troponins or analytical differences between the assays. Amino-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) was included for comparison as a prognostic marker, and contemporary sensitive cTn assays were included for assessment of covariation between different cTn assays.

Materials and Methods

STUDY DESIGN AND POPULATION

This clinical study was conducted between 2007 and 2008, in a single coronary care center, including 458 consecutive patients admitted for coronary angiography due to NSTE-ACS, and the methods have been described previously in detail (16). The classification of patients as non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or unstable angina pectoris (UAP) was based on clinical judgment, electrocardiography (ECG) recordings, and rise and/or fall of cTn concentrations as measured by contemporary sensitive assays (both cTnT and cTnI) used in 2007–2008 in the hospitals in the catchment area of the coronary care center.

The present study includes 390 of the original population, with remaining serum samples available for further analysis. History of coronary artery disease (CAD) was predefined as previous AMI and/or coronary revascularization, either by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). ECG recordings were analyzed by one investigator (JG) with no knowledge of the hs-cTnT nor hs-cTnI concentration at the time of the ECG assessment. The Regional Ethics Committee approved the study, and all patients provided written, informed consent.

BIOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Peripheral venous blood was collected during inclusion, which occurred within 2 h before coronary angiography. After centrifugation, serum aliquots were frozen and stored at −70 °C until analysis. All biomarkers presented in the study are from samples drawn at the same time point. The Roche cTnT (fourth generation), hs-cTnT, and NT-proBNP assays were performed on a Modular E170 platform using the Elecsys reagents. Whereas the fourth-generation cTnT assay had a limit of detection (LoD) of 10 ng/l and a 10% CV at 35 ng/L, the hs-cTnT assay had a limit of blank of 3 ng/L, a LoD of 5 ng/L, a 10% CV at 13 ng/L, and a 99th percentile in healthy individuals reported to be 14 ng/L (17). NT-proBNP had a LoD of 5 ng/L, and a 97.5th-percentile cutoff of 263 ng/L for those ages 55–64. The interassay CV was 3.1% at a concentration of 46 ng/L and 2.7% at a concentration of 125 ng/L. The Abbott hs-cTnI assay (ARCHITECT STAT high-sensitive Troponin I) had a LoD of 1.9 ng/L, a 99th percentile in healthy individuals of 26 ng/L, and 10% CV at 4.7 ng/L (15, 18). The Siemens cTnI Ultra assay had a LoD of 6 ng/L and a 99th percentile of 40 ng/L, and samples were analyzed as previously reported (16). To exclude the possibility that different timing from sampling to analysis could have affected the results (hs-cTnT analyzed in 2010 and hs-cTnI analyzed in 2014), 40 samples from all quartiles were reanalyzed for hs-cTnT in May 2016. These results displayed no deterioration of sample quality after longtime storage (see Fig. 1 in the Data Supplement that accompanies the online version of this article at http://www.clinchem.org/content/vol63/issue2.). The investigational assays were all commercially available and supplied by the respective manufacturers, which had no role in the design of the study, the analysis of the data, or the preparation of the manuscript. Renal function was evaluated by the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), as recommended by the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) (19). Renal dysfunction was defined as eGFR <60 mL · min−1 · (1.73 m2)−1.

CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY

Coronary angiography was performed by a standard (Judkins) technique, using digital image acquisition and storage. Revascularization was not part of the study protocol but was performed in accordance with current guidelines.

STUDY OUTCOMES

The primary end point was significant coronary lesions, defined as a coronary artery stenosis >50% of the luminal diameter with a need for revascularization, either by PCI or CABG, or significant lesions not suitable for PCI or CABG. The secondary end points evaluating long-term prognosis were (a) cardiovascular mortality, defined as time to death from an acute cardiovascular event or sudden death without other obvious cause; (b) all-cause mortality, defined as time to death irrespective of cause; and (c) composite cardiovascular end point, defined as the composite of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization for recurrent AMI or heart failure (HF). Events were registered in all patients.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Continuous variables with a normal distribution are described with means and standard deviation (SD), and variables with a skewed distribution with median and quartiles. Categorical and discrete variables are presented as counts and percentages. Paired differences in continuous variables were tested using the Wilcoxon test, and association between pairs of categorical variables was tested using χ2 tests with Yates correction. The unadjusted accuracy of the respective biomarkers in prediction of significant coronary lesions and long-term prognosis was determined by area under the ROC curves (AUCs). Survival times were defined from the date of diagnosis to death, as previously defined, and presented through Kaplan–Meier curves. Continuous, log-transformed values of hs-cTn and NT-proBNP were included in a Cox regression analysis to evaluate their associations with the respective end points. We adjusted for age and history of CAD (step 1) and for log-transformed plasma concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP) and eGFR (step 2), as these are factors associated with increased cTn-concentrations (9). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were calculated. The relationships between the different cTn assays were examined on log-transformed values by Spearman rank correlation and a Deming regression method for first- and second-order polynomials. The sum of squared residuals from the actual data point orthogonal to the regression curve was minimized by a bootstrap method. These regression residuals also constitute the basis for calculation of intermethod dispersion (IMD) = 10δ − 1, where δ is the SD of the Deming residuals. Hence, IMD expresses how much the ratio between the 2 methods (10δ) deviates from 1 and, accordingly, denotes the dispersion between the log-transformed cTn values. All statistical tests were 2-sided, and a significance level of 0.05 was used. We consider our analysis as exploratory and therefore did not adjust the significance level for multiple testing. Comparison between AUCs was performed as previously described, using MedCalc software version 14.12.0 and the DeLong test (20). All other statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 22.0 (SPSS Inc.).

The authors are solely responsible for the design and conduct of this study, all study analysis, and drafting and editing of the manuscript.

Results

PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS

Baseline characteristics for the total patient cohort are shown in Table 1. The median period from onset of symptoms to coronary angiography was 2 days. There were 41 (10.5%) patients with renal dysfunction, defined by eGFR <60 mL · min−1 · (1.73 m2)−1, included in the study. Positive angiographic findings were detected in 282 patients (72%), with one or more significant coronary lesions. In this group, 198 patients (70%) underwent PCI and 62 patients (22%) underwent CABG. The remaining 22 patients (8%) had significant coronary lesions not suitable for revascularization. In the patient group with UAP (n = 118) and the patient group with NSTEMI (n = 272), positive angiographic findings were detected in 45% and 86% of the patients, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Baseline characteristics.

COMPARISON OF hs-cTnT AND hs-cTnI CONCENTRATIONS

Neither hs-cTnT nor hs-cTnI concentrations were significantly influenced by the history of CAD (Fig. 1A). Both hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI concentrations were higher among patients with NSTEMI vs patients with UAP (Fig. 1B), and among nonsurvivors vs survivors (Fig. 1C and online Supplemental Fig. 2A) during follow-up. The respective differences in hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI concentrations between survivors and nonsurvivors were also present after exclusion of patients with renal dysfunction (Fig. 1D). In general, hs-cTnI concentrations were numerically higher than hs-cTnT values. The correlation coefficients between hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI were 0.965 (P < 0.001) for the whole patient group, and 0.699 (P < 0.001) and 0.947 (P < 0.001) in the UAP and NSTEMI groups, respectively. The correlation coefficient for the UAP group remained significantly lower than for the NSTEMI group after exclusion of patients with renal dysfunction (0.690 vs 0.952, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in variables that predicted increasing concentrations of hs-cTnT than of hs-cTnI (data not shown).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Fig. 1. Range of hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI values depending on history of CAD (A), UAP vs NSTEMI (B), and cardiovascular mortality (C) in the total patient cohort, as well as cardiovascular mortality in the subgroup of patients without renal dysfunction (D). *P < 0.05.

COMPARISON OF THE ABILITY TO PREDICT SIGNIFICANT CORONARY LESIONS

The unadjusted test accuracy of one single measurement of hs-cTnT or hs-cTnI for identification of significant coronary lesions in the total patient cohort was similar between the 2 assays (Fig. 2A, Table 2). These results were comparable for the subgroup of patients without renal dysfunction (see online Supplemental Table 1 and online Supplemental Fig. 3A). The sensitivities, specificities, negative predictive values, and positive predictive values at LoD and the 99th percentiles of the assays are presented in online Supplemental Table 2.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Fig. 2. ROC curves demonstrating the ability of the different assays to predict significant coronary lesions (A) and cardiovascular mortality (B) in the total patient cohort.

Kaplan–Meier curves demonstrating the cumulative incidence of cardiovascular mortality in the total patient cohort according to quartiles of hs-cTnT (C) and hs-cTnI concentrations (D), as well as cardiovascular mortality in the subgroup of patients without renal dysfunction according to quartiles of hs-cTnT (E) and hs-cTnI concentrations (F).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Prediction of significant coronary lesions and long-term prognosis.

COMPARISON OF PROGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE

The mean (SD) follow-up period was 2921 (168) days. The unadjusted accuracy of a single measurement of hs-cTnT, hs-cTnI, or NT-proBNP in prediction of cardiovascular mortality (n = 34), all-cause mortality (n = 51), and the composite end point (n = 92) was tested by respective AUCs. NT-proBNP was superior to both hs-cTn assays in prediction of all secondary end points (Table 2, Fig. 2B, and online Supplemental Fig. 2B). When comparing the 2 hs-cTn assays, a minor but statistically significant difference in favor of hs-cTnT was detected (Table 2). These differences were essentially unaltered when separate analyses on the subgroup of patients without renal dysfunction were performed (see online Supplemental Table 1 and online Supplemental Fig. 3B).

Log-transformed serum concentrations of both hs-cTn assays and NT-proBNP were separately included in a univariate Cox proportional hazards regression model (Table 3). Whereas significant associations were found between all 3 assays and cardiovascular, as well as all-cause mortality during follow-up, only NT-proBNP was significantly associated with the composite cardiovascular end point. In contrast to the hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI assays, NT-proBNP remained a significant predictor for both mortality and the composite cardiovascular end point after adjustment for age, history of CAD, log-transformed plasma concentrations of CRP (missing data in n = 69 patients), and eGFR (Table 3, regression step 2). Multivariate analyses for the subgroup of patients without renal dysfunction are presented in online Supplemental Table 3. Kaplan–Meier curves depicting the cumulative incidence of cardiovascular mortality in all patients according to quartiles of the respective biomarker concentrations are shown in Fig. 2, C and D, whereas the corresponding analyses for all-cause mortality are displayed in online Supplemental Fig. 2, C and D. Both hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI concentrations in the fourth quartile seem to identify a subgroup of patients with a particularly poor prognosis. These findings remained comparable within the subgroup of patients with eGFR ≥60 mL · min−1 · (1.73 m2)−1, and therefore could not be explained by the contribution of renal dysfunction alone (Fig. 2, E and F).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Multivariate analysis; effects of hs-cTnT, hs-cTnI, and NT-proBNP concentrations on long-term prognosis.

VARIATION BETWEEN DIFFERENT TROPONIN ASSAYS

Fig. 3 shows scatterplots for comparisons between log-transformed cTn concentrations, measured with both new and old assays. Surprisingly, the observed relationships between the different cTnT and cTnI assays were nonlinear. To quantify the dispersion between the different cTn assays, IMD was calculated as detailed previously in the Materials and Methods section. The estimated IMD was 9.4% between the cTnT methods, whereas it was 16.1% between the cTnI methods. However, when comparing hs-cTnT with the hs-cTnI and Siemens cTnI Ultra methods, the IMD increased markedly and varied between 45.7% and 48.6% (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Fig. 3. Relationship between cTn concentrations measured with old and new assays with quantification of respective IMD.

IMDs, expressed in relative units, are displayed in the corresponding retransformed figures.

Discussion

This study, which directly compared the 2 commercially available hs-cTn assays (Roche hs-cTnT and Abbott hs-cTnI) in NSTE-ACS patients, revealed novel and complementary findings on the following topics: (a) prediction of significant coronary lesions, (b) long-term prognosis during a mean follow-up of more than 8 years, and (c) thorough analyses of the relationship and dispersion between different cTn methods.

When comparing one single measurement of hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI for the identification of significant coronary lesions, we found similar accuracy between the 2 assays. The long-term prognostic performance of NT-proBNP was superior to both hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI, also within the subgroup of patients without renal dysfunction. Although hardly relevant clinically, a small but statistically significant difference in prognostic accuracy between the 2 hs-cTn assays, in favor of hs-cTnT, was detected. When assessing the relationships between log-transformed values from the different cTn-methods, nonlinear relationships were seen. We found only a minor difference in dispersion between the hs-cTnT and the contemporary cTnT assays and between the hs-cTnI and the contemporary cTnI assays, respectively. Conversely, a striking finding was the large dispersion between the hs-cTnT and the cTnI assays.

Since both hs-TnT and hs-TnI assays are in clinical use as markers of myocardial injury, NSTE-ACS patients may be referred from emergency hospitals to invasive coronary care centers that use different hs-cTn methodology. Hence, studies comparing decision limits and prognostic performance between different hs-cTn assays are of clinical importance. Given the fact that these are 2 different proteins and several different analytical methods exist, both biological and analytical properties are possible factors that may explain the observed differences. A recent report directly compared the hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI assays for the early diagnosis of AMI among unselected patients admitted with acute chest pain (15). Although subtle, interesting differences were found. The diagnostic performance of hs-cTnI at admission was superior to that of hs-cTnT among the subgroup of early presenters. However, there was no difference between the assays within the total cohort. Analogous to our results, hs-cTnT was found to be superior to hs-cTnI in prediction of long-term prognosis.

As the sensitivity of the cTn assays has improved, new information has emerged indicating that troponins are also important prognostic biomarkers in cardiovascular disorders other than AMI (21). The strong prognostic value of increased troponin concentrations as measured with high-sensitivity assays has been demonstrated in chronic nonischemic cardiac conditions such as atrial fibrillation, HF, and aortic stenosis (22–25). Even within a low-level range, cTns measured with both hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI assays were important predictors for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable angina pectoris (26, 27). In our opinion, these studies demonstrate that increased cTn concentrations are of considerable pathophysiological importance beyond what is related to ischemia directly. In this respect, changes in hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI concentrations in patients referred for myocardial perfusion imaging owing to suspected stable CAD were more highly correlated with variables associated with structural myocardial alterations than with reversible ischemia (28). A short-term biological variation in cTn concentrations has also been shown for healthy individuals and in patients with stable CAD (29, 30). In the present study, the correlation coefficient between hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI concentrations was substantially lower within the UAP subgroup than among NSTEMI patients, irrespective of exclusion of those with renal dysfunction. Accordingly, the clinical relevance of differences between hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI assays is likely to be most prominent in patients with cTn-concentrations in the lower range, which is understandable because substantial myocardial necrosis in AMI patients will override more subtle biological or analytical differences. A poor correlation between cTnT and cTnI concentrations in the low-level range is also demonstrated in patients with nonischemic conditions (27, 31, 32, 33).

Although the pathophysiological mechanisms of cTn release from cardiac myocytes in the lower range are not completely understood, differences between cTnT and cTnI concentrations may involve differences in protein weight, different stability in the circulation, and different ratios of free cytoplasmic cTnT and cTnI of the damaged myocytes (32, 34). Interestingly, hs-cTnT concentrations have been shown to be more influenced by renal dysfunction than hs-cTnI concentrations (28). In our study, the drop in predictive value for the hs-cTn assays in step 2 of the multivariate analyses indicates an association with both renal dysfunction and inflammation. These may all be important factors responsible for the differences observed in the present study and other studies (13–15). The differences in IMD between the 2 cTnT and the 2 cTnI assays, respectively, could be explained by calibration/standardization of the assays. While the cTnT assays are available only from Roche and therefore use the same monoclonal antibodies, there are several cTnI manufacturers using different detection technology (32). However, the observation that the dispersion is dramatically larger between cTnT and cTnI assays than between the 2 cTnI assays is unlikely to be explained by analytical differences alone. This suggests that there are biological differences between the troponins that also influence measurements, which in turn may affect prognostic value. Thus, differences between cTnT and cTnI could be of clinical relevance for prognostic utility, but these prognostic differences do not seem to influence the ability of these assays to identify significant coronary artery lesions in NSTE-ACS patients.

LIMITATIONS

As our results in this exploratory study are based on one single measurement of cTn after admittance to a tertiary coronary center, we cannot exclude the possibility that earlier or serial sampling would have affected the results. Our data do not take into consideration potential differences in performance among early presenters. Although the time intervals from symptoms to coronary angiography were registered, the precise time point for sampling was not further specified than within 2 h before coronary angiography. We cannot exclude a selection bias in our study, with a relatively higher number of patients with significant CAD, because the patients were referred to coronary angiography during the inclusion period based on troponin concentrations measured by contemporary sensitive cTn assays.

Conclusions

The hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI assays displayed a similar ability to predict significant coronary lesions among NSTE-ACS patients. NT-proBNP is superior to both hs-cTn assays as a prognostic marker in this patient group. Our data suggest that the observed differences between hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI assays have biological rather than analytical explanations. However, further studies are needed to further explore the relevance of differences between the 2 high-sensitivity troponin assays in cardiovascular disease.

Acknowledgments

The authors highly appreciate the technical assistance of Marit Holmefjord Pedersen, Clinical Trail Unit, Division of Medicine, Akershus University Hospital.

Footnotes

  • ↵6 Nonstandard abbreviations:

    AMI,
    acute myocardial infarction;
    cTns,
    cardiac troponins;
    ACS,
    acute coronary syndrome;
    NSTE,
    non-ST elevation;
    NT-proBNP,
    amino-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide;
    NSTEMI,
    non-ST elevation myocardial infarction;
    UAP,
    unstable angina pectoris;
    ECG,
    electrocardiography;
    CAD,
    coronary artery disease;
    PCI,
    percutaneous coronary intervention;
    CABG,
    coronary artery bypass grafting;
    LoD,
    limit of detection;
    eGFR,
    estimated glomerular filtration rate;
    CKD-EPI,
    Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration;
    HF,
    heart failure;
    AUC,
    area under the ROC curve;
    CRP,
    C-reactive protein;
    HR,
    hazard ratio;
    IMD,
    intermethod dispersion.

  • Author Contributions: All authors confirmed they have contributed to the intellectual content of this paper and have met the following 3 requirements: (a) significant contributions to the conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (b) drafting or revising the article for intellectual content; and (c) final approval of the published article.

  • Authors' Disclosures or Potential Conflicts of Interest: Upon manuscript submission, all authors completed the author disclosure form. Disclosures and/or potential conflicts of interest:

  • Employment or Leadership: None declared.

  • Consultant or Advisory Role: None declared.

  • Stock Ownership: None declared.

  • Honoraria: J. Gravning, Siemens and Abbott Laboratories.

  • Research Funding: None declared.

  • Expert Testimony: None declared.

  • Patents: None declared.

  • Role of Sponsor: No sponsor was declared.

  • Received for publication May 31, 2016.
  • Accepted for publication August 22, 2016.
  • © 2016 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Thygesen K,
    2. Alpert JS,
    3. Jaffe AS,
    4. Simoons ML,
    5. Chaitman BR,
    6. White HD
    . Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Circulation 2012;126:2020–35.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. White HD,
    2. Thygesen K,
    3. Alpert JS,
    4. Jaffe AS
    . Clinical implications of the Third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. Heart 2014;100:424–32.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Anderson JL,
    2. Adams CD,
    3. Antman EM,
    4. Bridges CR,
    5. Califf RM,
    6. Casey DE Jr..,
    7. et al
    . 2011 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2011;123:e426–579.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Reichlin T,
    2. Hochholzer W,
    3. Bassetti S,
    4. Steuer S,
    5. Stelzig C,
    6. Hartwiger S,
    7. et al
    . Early diagnosis of myocardial infarction with sensitive cardiac troponin assays. N Engl J Med 2009;361:858–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  5. 5.↵
    1. Keller T,
    2. Zeller T,
    3. Peetz D,
    4. Tzikas S,
    5. Roth A,
    6. Czyz E,
    7. et al
    . Sensitive troponin I assay in early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2009;361:868–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  6. 6.↵
    1. Morrow DA,
    2. Cannon CP,
    3. Jesse RL,
    4. Newby LK,
    5. Ravkilde J,
    6. Storrow AB,
    7. et al
    . National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory medicine practice guidelines: clinical characteristics and utilization of biochemical markers in acute coronary syndromes. Circulation 2007;115:e356–75.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Roffi M,
    2. Patrono C,
    3. Collet JP,
    4. Mueller C,
    5. Valgimigli M,
    6. Andreotti F,
    7. et al
    . 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2016;37:267–315.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Amsterdam EA,
    2. Wenger NK,
    3. Brindis RG,
    4. Casey DE Jr.,
    5. Ganiats TG,
    6. Holmes DR Jr.,
    7. et al
    . 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:e139–228.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Thygesen K,
    2. Mair J,
    3. Katus H,
    4. Plebani M,
    5. Venge P,
    6. Collinson P,
    7. et al
    . Recommendations for the use of cardiac troponin measurement in acute cardiac care. Eur Heart J 2010;31:2197–204.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. de Lemos JA,
    2. Drazner MH,
    3. Omland T,
    4. Ayers CR,
    5. Khera A,
    6. Rohatgi A,
    7. et al
    . Association of troponin T detected with a highly sensitive assay and cardiac structure and mortality risk in the general population. JAMA 2010;304:2503–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  11. 11.↵
    1. Simpson AJ,
    2. Potter JM,
    3. Koerbin G,
    4. Oakman C,
    5. Cullen L,
    6. Wilkes GJ,
    7. et al
    . Use of observed within-person variation of cardiac troponin in emergency department patients for determination of biological variation and percentage and absolute reference change values. Clin Chem 2014;60:848–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Kavsak PA,
    2. Wang X,
    3. Ko DT,
    4. MacRae AR,
    5. Jaffe AS
    . Short- and long-term risk stratification using a next-generation, high-sensitivity research cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) assay in an emergency department chest pain population. Clin Chem 2009;55:1809–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Carlton EW,
    2. Khattab A,
    3. Greaves K
    . Identifying patients suitable for discharge after single-presentation high-sensitivity troponin result: a comparison of five established risk scores and two high-sensitivity assays. Ann Emerg Med 2015;66:635–645.e1.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  14. 14.↵
    1. Cullen L,
    2. Aldous S,
    3. Than M,
    4. Greenslade JH,
    5. Tate JR,
    6. George PM,
    7. et al
    . Comparison of high sensitivity troponin T and I assays in the diagnosis of non-ST elevation acute myocardial infarction in emergency patients with chest pain. Clin Biochem 2014;47:321–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  15. 15.↵
    1. Rubini Gimenez M,
    2. Twerenbold R,
    3. Reichlin T,
    4. Wildi K,
    5. Haaf P,
    6. Schaefer M,
    7. et al
    . Direct comparison of high-sensitivity-cardiac troponin I vs. T for the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2014;35:2303–11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Gravning J,
    2. Smedsrud MK,
    3. Omland T,
    4. Eek C,
    5. Skulstad H,
    6. Aaberge L,
    7. et al
    . Sensitive troponin assays and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide in acute coronary syndrome: prediction of significant coronary lesions and long-term prognosis. Am Heart J 2013;165:716–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  17. 17.↵
    1. Giannitsis E,
    2. Kurz K,
    3. Hallermayer K,
    4. Jarausch J,
    5. Jaffe A,
    6. Katus HA
    . Analytical validation of a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T assay. Clin Chem 2010;56:254–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Apple FS,
    2. Ler R,
    3. Murakami MM
    . Determination of 19 cardiac troponin I and T assay 99th percentile values from a common presumably healthy population. Clin Chem 2012;58:1574–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Levey AS,
    2. Stevens LA,
    3. Schmid CH,
    4. Zhang Y,
    5. Castro CF III.,
    6. Feldman HI,
    7. et al
    . A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:604–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  20. 20.↵
    1. Stephan C,
    2. Wesseling S,
    3. Schink T,
    4. Jung K
    . Comparison of eight computer programs for receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Clin Chem 2003;49:433–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. de Lemos JA
    . Increasingly sensitive assays for cardiac troponins: a review. JAMA 2013;309:2262–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  22. 22.↵
    1. Gravning J,
    2. Askevold ET,
    3. Nymo SH,
    4. Ueland T,
    5. Wikstrand J,
    6. McMurray JJ,
    7. et al
    . Prognostic effect of high-sensitive troponin T assessment in elderly patients with chronic heart failure: results from the CORONA trial. Circ Heart Fail 2014;7:96–103.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.
    1. Felker GM,
    2. Mentz RJ,
    3. Teerlink JR,
    4. Voors AA,
    5. Pang PS,
    6. Ponikowski P,
    7. et al
    . Serial high sensitivity cardiac troponin T measurement in acute heart failure: insights from the RELAX-AHF study. Eur J Heart Fail 2015;17:1262–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  24. 24.
    1. Rosjo H,
    2. Andreassen J,
    3. Edvardsen T,
    4. Omland T
    . Prognostic usefulness of circulating high-sensitivity troponin T in aortic stenosis and relation to echocardiographic indexes of cardiac function and anatomy. Am J Cardiol 2011;108:88–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  25. 25.↵
    1. Hijazi Z,
    2. Siegbahn A,
    3. Andersson U,
    4. Lindahl B,
    5. Granger CB,
    6. Alexander JH,
    7. et al
    . Comparison of cardiac troponins I and T measured with high-sensitivity methods for evaluation of prognosis in atrial fibrillation: an ARISTOTLE substudy. Clin Chem 2015;61:368–78.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Omland T,
    2. de Lemos JA,
    3. Sabatine MS,
    4. Christophi CA,
    5. Rice MM,
    6. Jablonski KA,
    7. et al
    . A sensitive cardiac troponin T assay in stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009;361:2538–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  27. 27.↵
    1. Omland T,
    2. Pfeffer MA,
    3. Solomon SD,
    4. de Lemos JA,
    5. Rosjo H,
    6. Benth JS,
    7. et al
    . Prognostic value of cardiac troponin I measured with a highly sensitive assay in patients with stable coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:1240–9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Rosjo H,
    2. Kravdal G,
    3. Hoiseth AD,
    4. Jorgensen M,
    5. Badr P,
    6. Roysland R,
    7. Omland T
    . Troponin I measured by a high-sensitivity assay in patients with suspected reversible myocardial ischemia: data from the Akershus Cardiac Examination (ACE) 1 study. Clin Chem 2012;58:1565–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Wu AH,
    2. Lu QA,
    3. Todd J,
    4. Moecks J,
    5. Wians F
    . Short- and long-term biological variation in cardiac troponin I measured with a high-sensitivity assay: implications for clinical practice. Clin Chem 2009;55:52–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Nordenskjold AM,
    2. Ahlstrom H,
    3. Eggers KM,
    4. Frobert O,
    5. Jaffe AS,
    6. Venge P,
    7. Lindahl B
    . Short- and long-term individual variation in cardiac troponin in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Clin Chem 2013;59:401–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Omland T,
    2. de Lemos JA,
    3. Holmen OL,
    4. Dalen H,
    5. Benth JS,
    6. Nygard S,
    7. et al
    . Impact of sex on the prognostic value of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I in the general population: the HUNT study. Clin Chem 2015;61:646–56.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Jarolim P
    . High sensitivity cardiac troponin assays in the clinical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:635–52.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  33. 33.↵
    1. Einvik G,
    2. Rosjo H,
    3. Randby A,
    4. Namtvedt SK,
    5. Hrubos-Strom H,
    6. Brynildsen J,
    7. et al
    . Severity of obstructive sleep apnea is associated with cardiac troponin I concentrations in a community-based sample: data from the Akershus Sleep Apnea Project. Sleep 2014;37:1111–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  34. 34.↵
    1. Apple FS
    . Counterpoint: standardization of cardiac troponin I assays will not occur in my lifetime. Clin Chem 2012;58:169–71.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Chemistry: 63 (2)
Vol. 63, Issue 2
February 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • Audio summary of this issue
Print
Share
High-Sensitivity Troponin T vs I in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Prediction of Significant Coronary Lesions and Long-term Prognosis
Brede Kvisvik, Lars Mørkrid, Helge Røsjø, Milada Cvancarova, Alexander D. Rowe, Christian Eek, Bjørn Bendz, Thor Edvardsen, Jørgen Gravning
Clinical Chemistry Feb 2017, 63 (2) 552-562; DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2016.261107
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
High-Sensitivity Troponin T vs I in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Prediction of Significant Coronary Lesions and Long-term Prognosis
Brede Kvisvik, Lars Mørkrid, Helge Røsjø, Milada Cvancarova, Alexander D. Rowe, Christian Eek, Bjørn Bendz, Thor Edvardsen, Jørgen Gravning
Clinical Chemistry Feb 2017, 63 (2) 552-562; DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2016.261107

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparative Analysis of Biochemical Biases by Ligation- and Template-Switch-Based Small RNA Library Preparation Protocols
  • A Novel Online Calculator Based on Serum Biomarkers to Detect Hepatocellular Carcinoma among Patients with Hepatitis B
  • Clinical Utility of Procalcitonin in the Diagnosis of Pneumonia
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • SUBJECT AREAS
    • Proteomics and Protein Markers

Options

  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • Information for Authors
  • Resources
  • Abstracts
  • Submit
  • Contact
  • RSS

Other Publications

  • The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Footer logo

© 2019 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Powered by HighWire