Hetland O, Dickstein K
Department of Clinical Chemistry, Rogaland Central Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Clin Chem. 1998 Jul;44(7):1430-6.
We compared cardiac troponin I (cTnI), using Access, Sanofi Pasteur, and cardiac troponin T (cTnT), using Elecsys, Boehringer Mannheim, in the first two routine blood samplings in a routine panel of cardiac markers for the biochemical diagnostic evaluation of patients with symptoms of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). No significant differences in the overall clinical performances of cTnI and cTnT were observed for the diagnosis of AMI (n = 68), but cTnI demonstrated lower initial sensitivity and higher specificity compared with cTnT. cTnT was increased to higher relative values than cTnI (P = 0.023). Discordances were found between cTnI and cTnT in sample I but not in sample II; positive cTnT/negative cTnI was more common than the opposite discordance (P = 0.027). cTnT was more frequently increased in patients with unstable angina pectoris (UAP) than cTnI (P = 0.038), with no significant differences between sample I and sample II; discordant results with respect to cTnI and cTnT appeared in 6 (33%) of these patients, all of which were positive for cTnT and negative for cTnI. Four patients with UAP (22%) developed AMI within 4 months; three were associated with increased cTnI and cTnT at the time of initial testing, and one was discordant (positive cTnT). In patients classified with no acute coronary syndrome (n = 84), five concordant positives for cTnI and cTnT were observed, indicating the existence of a myocardial injury of recent origin in these patients. AMI evolved in one of these patients 5 months later. We conclude that cTnT and cTnI detect acute myocardial injury with equal clinical performance in AMI patients classified by WHO criteria. cTnT was more frequently increased in patients with UAP than cTnI, but the clinical significance of this discordance could not be determined from this study.
我们在急性心肌梗死(AMI)症状患者的生化诊断评估的常规心脏标志物检测中,对前两次常规血液采样使用Access(赛诺菲巴斯德公司)检测心肌肌钙蛋白I(cTnI),以及使用Elecsys(罗氏公司)检测心肌肌钙蛋白T(cTnT)进行了比较。在诊断AMI(n = 68)时,未观察到cTnI和cTnT的总体临床性能有显著差异,但与cTnT相比,cTnI表现出较低的初始敏感性和较高的特异性。cTnT升高至比cTnI更高的相对值(P = 0.023)。在样本I中发现cTnI和cTnT之间存在不一致,但在样本II中未发现;cTnT阳性/cTnI阴性比相反的不一致情况更常见(P = 0.027)。不稳定型心绞痛(UAP)患者中cTnT升高比cTnI更频繁(P = 0.038),样本I和样本II之间无显著差异;这些患者中有6例(33%)出现了关于cTnI和cTnT的不一致结果,所有这些结果均为cTnT阳性和cTnI阴性。4例UAP患者(22%)在4个月内发生了AMI;3例在初始检测时cTnI和cTnT均升高,1例结果不一致(cTnT阳性)。在分类为无急性冠状动脉综合征的患者(n = 84)中,观察到5例cTnI和cTnT均为阳性结果一致,表明这些患者近期存在心肌损伤。其中1例患者在5个月后发生了AMI。我们得出结论,按照世界卫生组织标准分类的AMI患者中,cTnT和cTnI在检测急性心肌损伤方面具有相同的临床性能。UAP患者中cTnT升高比cTnI更频繁,但本研究无法确定这种不一致的临床意义。