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

Editorial Board Member: Gillery, Philippe / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Schlattmann, Peter / Tate, Jillian R. / Tsongalis, Gregory J.

13 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2013: 2.955
Rank 5 out of 29 in category Medical Laboratory Technology in the 2013 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Science Edition

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



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:


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.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.