Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Schlattmann, Peter / Tate, Jillian R. / Tsongalis, Gregory J.

12 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2014: 2.707
Rank 6 out of 30 in category Medical Laboratory Technology in the 2014 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Science Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.860
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 1.046

VolumeIssuePage

Issues

Evaluation of a Point-of-Care System for Quantitative Determination of Troponin T and Myoglobin

Margit Müller-Bardorff / Christer Sylvén / Gundars Rasmanis / Bo Jørgensen / Paul O. Collinson / Ulla Waldenhofer / Michael M. Hirschl / Anton N. Laggner / Willie Gerhardt / Gerd Hafner / Irene Labaere / Robert Leinberger / Rainer Zerback / Hugo A. Katus

Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Volume 38, Issue 6, Pages 567–574, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2000.083, June 2005

Publication History

Published Online:
2005-06-01

Abstract

We present the results of a multicenter evaluation of a new point-of-care system (Cardiac Reader) for the quantitative determination of cardiac troponin T (CARDIAC T Quantitative test) and myoglobin (CARDIAC M test) in whole blood samples.

The Cardiac Reader is a CCD camera that optically reads the immunochemical test strips. The measuring range is 0.1 to 3 μg/l for CARDIAC T Quantitative and 30 to 700 μg/l for CARDIAC M. Both tests are calibrated by the manufacturer. The reaction times of the tests are 12 or 8 minutes, respectively.

Method comparisons were performed with 281 heparinized blood samples from patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes. The results obtained with CARDIAC T Quantitative showed a good agreement compared with cardiac troponin T ELISA (r = 0.89; y = 0.93x + 0.02). The method comparison between CARDIAC M and Tina-quant Myoglobin also showed a good agreement between both assays (r = 0.98; y = 0.92x + 1.6). Test lot-to-lot comparisons yielded differences of 2% and 6% for CARDIACT Quantitative and of 0 to 11% for CARDIACM.

The within-run imprecision with blood samples and control materials was acceptable for CARDIAC T Quantitative (CV 10 to 15%) and good for CARDIAC M (CV 5 to 10%). The between-instrument CV was below 7% for CARDIACT Quantitative and below 5% for CARDIACM. The cross-reactivity of CARDIAC T Quantitative with skeletal troponin T was approximately 0.003%. No significant analytical interference was detected for any of the assays in investigations with biotin (up to 100 μg/l), hemoglobin (up to 0.125 mmol/l), hematocrit (26 to 52%), bilirubin (up to 340 μmol/l), triglycerides (up to 5.0 mmol/l), and 18 standard drugs.

With the Cardiac Reader reliable quantitative results can be easily obtained for both cardiac markers. The system is, therefore, particularly suitable for use in emergency rooms, coronary care units and small hospitals.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Evgenij V. Potapov, Frank D. Wagner, Matthias Loebe, Ekaterina A. Ivanitskaia, Christian Müller, Ralf Sodian, Britta Jonitz, and Roland Hetzer
International Journal of Cardiology, 2003, Volume 92, Number 2-3, Page 163
[3]
Paul O Collinson, Bo Jørgensen, Christer Sylvén, Markus Haass, Frank Chwallek, Hugo A Katus, Margit Müller-Bardorff, Ulla Derhaschnig, Michael M Hirschl, and Rainer Zerback
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2001, Volume 307, Number 1-2, Page 197
[4]
Theresa M. Ambrose, Dale Knight, and Jim Neher
Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology, 2002, Volume 1, Number 1, Page 50
[5]
Volkhard Kurowski, Franz Hartmann, Dirk P. Killermann, Evangelos Giannitsis, Uwe K. H. Wiegand, Norbert Frey, Margit Müller-Bardorff, Gert Richardt, and Hugo A. Katus
Critical Care Medicine, 2002, Volume 30, Number 10, Page 2229
[7]
Hi J. Kwon, Eun J. Seo, and Ki O. Min
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2003, Volume 41, Number 3
[8]
Iwan A. Burgener, AIan Kovacevic, G. Neal Mauldin, and Christophe W. Lombard
Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, 2006, Volume 20, Number 2, Page 277
[9]
Alan B. Storrow, Fred S. Apple, Alan H.B. Wu, Robert L. Jesse, Gary S. Francis, Robert H. Christenson, Christopher P. Cannon, David A. Morrow, L. Kristin Newby, Jan Ravkilde, and Wilson Tang
Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology, 2007, Volume 6, Number 4, Page 215
[10]
Alan B. Storrow, Christopher J. Lindsell, Sean P. Collins, Greg J. Fermann, Andra L. Blomkalns, Janet M. Williams, Barbara Goldsmith, and W. Brian Gibler
Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology, 2006, Volume 5, Number 3, Page 132
[11]
Nziavake Masimasi and Robert T. Means
The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 2005, Volume 330, Number 4, Page 201
[12]
H. Hallani, D. Y. Leung, E. Newland, and C. P. Juergens
Internal Medicine Journal, 2005, Volume 35, Number 9, Page 560
[13]
David Gaze, Paul O. Collinson, Markus Haass, Ulla Derhaschnig, Michael M. Hirschl, Hugo A. Katus, Frank Chwallek, Margit Mueller-Bardorff, John Kellett, Jordi Ord????ez-Llanos, Miquel Santal??-Bel, Javier Merc??-Munta??ola, Christer Sylv??n, Ilse Schulz, and Rainer Zerback
Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology, 2004, Volume 3, Number 4, Page 156

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.