High-Sensitivity Troponin: Star Player but No Lone Hero. Body, R. Clinical Chemistry, 63(10):1555–1556, October, 2017. ![High-Sensitivity Troponin: Star Player but No Lone Hero [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex In this issue of Clinical Chemistry , Sandoval et al. report a secondary analysis from the Use of High Sensitivity Troponin I Assay in Acute Coronary Syndromes (UTROPIA) study, in which they compare the accuracy of contemporary troponin I (cTnI) and high-sensitivity troponin I (hs-cTnI) assays manufactured by Abbott Laboratories (ARCHITECT Stat) (1). You may imagine that this issue has been exhausted in the literature, and that the diagnostic superiority of high-sensitivity assays has been clearly established. However, we should remember that not everyone is convinced. To date, only 1 high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assay (Elecsys® Troponin T high-sensitivity assay, manufactured by Roche Diagnostics) has received Food and Drug Administration approval in the US. This new evidence is therefore a very welcome addition to the literature. In fact, this evidence demonstrates even more important points than this experienced group of authors themselves highlight in their conclusions. On close examination, the data highlight 3 important reasons to feel positive about clinical implementation of hs-cTn assays. They reiterate, however, that hs-cTn is still not a perfect diagnostic tool. Clinicians cannot simply relax and let hs-cTn make the diagnoses. First, we should note that Sandoval et al. provide reassuring data for those concerned about an increase in “positive” results (above the 99th percentile upper reference limit) with hs-cTn assays. When measured at the time of arrival in the emergency department (ED)4, hs-cTnI had a similar specificity to cTnI (86.9% for hs-cTnI vs 84.4% for cTnI). What is more, the …
@article{body_high-sensitivity_2017,
title = {High-{Sensitivity} {Troponin}: {Star} {Player} but {No} {Lone} {Hero}},
volume = {63},
copyright = {© 2017 American Association for Clinical Chemistry},
issn = {0009-9147, 1530-8561},
shorttitle = {High-{Sensitivity} {Troponin}},
url = {http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/63/10/1555},
doi = {10.1373/clinchem.2017.277798},
abstract = {In this issue of Clinical Chemistry , Sandoval et al. report a secondary analysis from the Use of High Sensitivity Troponin I Assay in Acute Coronary Syndromes (UTROPIA) study, in which they compare the accuracy of contemporary troponin I (cTnI) and high-sensitivity troponin I (hs-cTnI) assays manufactured by Abbott Laboratories (ARCHITECT Stat) (1). You may imagine that this issue has been exhausted in the literature, and that the diagnostic superiority of high-sensitivity assays has been clearly established. However, we should remember that not everyone is convinced. To date, only 1 high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assay (Elecsys® Troponin T high-sensitivity assay, manufactured by Roche Diagnostics) has received Food and Drug Administration approval in the US. This new evidence is therefore a very welcome addition to the literature.
In fact, this evidence demonstrates even more important points than this experienced group of authors themselves highlight in their conclusions. On close examination, the data highlight 3 important reasons to feel positive about clinical implementation of hs-cTn assays. They reiterate, however, that hs-cTn is still not a perfect diagnostic tool. Clinicians cannot simply relax and let hs-cTn make the diagnoses.
First, we should note that Sandoval et al. provide reassuring data for those concerned about an increase in “positive” results (above the 99th percentile upper reference limit) with hs-cTn assays. When measured at the time of arrival in the emergency department (ED)4, hs-cTnI had a similar specificity to cTnI (86.9\% for hs-cTnI vs 84.4\% for cTnI). What is more, the …},
language = {en},
number = {10},
urldate = {2018-03-18TZ},
journal = {Clinical Chemistry},
author = {Body, Richard},
month = oct,
year = {2017},
pmid = {28807978},
keywords = {\_tablet},
pages = {1555--1556}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"gQjKsxo7jSWpxnXvQ","bibbaseid":"body-highsensitivitytroponinstarplayerbutnolonehero-2017","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2019-01-13T08:37:46.770Z","title":"High-Sensitivity Troponin: Star Player but No Lone Hero","author_short":["Body, R."],"year":2017,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/Rory.miller","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"High-Sensitivity Troponin: Star Player but No Lone Hero","volume":"63","copyright":"© 2017 American Association for Clinical Chemistry","issn":"0009-9147, 1530-8561","shorttitle":"High-Sensitivity Troponin","url":"http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/63/10/1555","doi":"10.1373/clinchem.2017.277798","abstract":"In this issue of Clinical Chemistry , Sandoval et al. report a secondary analysis from the Use of High Sensitivity Troponin I Assay in Acute Coronary Syndromes (UTROPIA) study, in which they compare the accuracy of contemporary troponin I (cTnI) and high-sensitivity troponin I (hs-cTnI) assays manufactured by Abbott Laboratories (ARCHITECT Stat) (1). You may imagine that this issue has been exhausted in the literature, and that the diagnostic superiority of high-sensitivity assays has been clearly established. However, we should remember that not everyone is convinced. To date, only 1 high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assay (Elecsys® Troponin T high-sensitivity assay, manufactured by Roche Diagnostics) has received Food and Drug Administration approval in the US. This new evidence is therefore a very welcome addition to the literature. In fact, this evidence demonstrates even more important points than this experienced group of authors themselves highlight in their conclusions. On close examination, the data highlight 3 important reasons to feel positive about clinical implementation of hs-cTn assays. They reiterate, however, that hs-cTn is still not a perfect diagnostic tool. Clinicians cannot simply relax and let hs-cTn make the diagnoses. First, we should note that Sandoval et al. provide reassuring data for those concerned about an increase in “positive” results (above the 99th percentile upper reference limit) with hs-cTn assays. When measured at the time of arrival in the emergency department (ED)4, hs-cTnI had a similar specificity to cTnI (86.9% for hs-cTnI vs 84.4% for cTnI). What is more, the …","language":"en","number":"10","urldate":"2018-03-18TZ","journal":"Clinical Chemistry","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Body"],"firstnames":["Richard"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"October","year":"2017","pmid":"28807978","keywords":"_tablet","pages":"1555–1556","bibtex":"@article{body_high-sensitivity_2017,\n\ttitle = {High-{Sensitivity} {Troponin}: {Star} {Player} but {No} {Lone} {Hero}},\n\tvolume = {63},\n\tcopyright = {© 2017 American Association for Clinical Chemistry},\n\tissn = {0009-9147, 1530-8561},\n\tshorttitle = {High-{Sensitivity} {Troponin}},\n\turl = {http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/63/10/1555},\n\tdoi = {10.1373/clinchem.2017.277798},\n\tabstract = {In this issue of Clinical Chemistry , Sandoval et al. report a secondary analysis from the Use of High Sensitivity Troponin I Assay in Acute Coronary Syndromes (UTROPIA) study, in which they compare the accuracy of contemporary troponin I (cTnI) and high-sensitivity troponin I (hs-cTnI) assays manufactured by Abbott Laboratories (ARCHITECT Stat) (1). You may imagine that this issue has been exhausted in the literature, and that the diagnostic superiority of high-sensitivity assays has been clearly established. However, we should remember that not everyone is convinced. To date, only 1 high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assay (Elecsys® Troponin T high-sensitivity assay, manufactured by Roche Diagnostics) has received Food and Drug Administration approval in the US. This new evidence is therefore a very welcome addition to the literature.\n\nIn fact, this evidence demonstrates even more important points than this experienced group of authors themselves highlight in their conclusions. On close examination, the data highlight 3 important reasons to feel positive about clinical implementation of hs-cTn assays. They reiterate, however, that hs-cTn is still not a perfect diagnostic tool. Clinicians cannot simply relax and let hs-cTn make the diagnoses.\n\nFirst, we should note that Sandoval et al. provide reassuring data for those concerned about an increase in “positive” results (above the 99th percentile upper reference limit) with hs-cTn assays. When measured at the time of arrival in the emergency department (ED)4, hs-cTnI had a similar specificity to cTnI (86.9\\% for hs-cTnI vs 84.4\\% for cTnI). What is more, the …},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {10},\n\turldate = {2018-03-18TZ},\n\tjournal = {Clinical Chemistry},\n\tauthor = {Body, Richard},\n\tmonth = oct,\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tpmid = {28807978},\n\tkeywords = {\\_tablet},\n\tpages = {1555--1556}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Body, R."],"key":"body_high-sensitivity_2017","id":"body_high-sensitivity_2017","bibbaseid":"body-highsensitivitytroponinstarplayerbutnolonehero-2017","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/63/10/1555"},"keyword":["_tablet"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["high","sensitivity","troponin","star","player","lone","hero","body"],"keywords":["_tablet"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["ehmLBKMxLmAEHFGjZ"]}