European Heart Journal (2014) 35, 2303–2311 CLINICAL RESEARCH

doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu188 Acute coronary syndromes

Direct comparison of high-sensitivity-cardiac

troponin I vs. T for the early diagnosis
of acute myocardial infarction
Maria Rubini Gimenez1,2†, Raphael Twerenbold 1,3†, Tobias Reichlin1,4, Karin Wildi 1,
Philip Haaf1, Miriam Schaefer 1, Christa Zellweger 1, Berit Moehring 1, Fabio Stallone 1,
Seoung Mann Sou 1, Mira Mueller 1, Kris Denhaerynck1, Tamina Mosimann 1,
Miriam Reiter 1, Bernadette Meller 1, Michael Freese 1, Claudia Stelzig 1,
Irina Klimmeck 1, Janine Voegele 1, Beate Hartmann 1, Katharina Rentsch 5,
Stefan Osswald 1, and Christian Mueller 1*
1
Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; 2Servicio de Urgencias y Pneumologia, CIBERES ISC III, Hospital del Mar – Institut Municipal D’Investigació
Mèdica, Barcelona, Spain; 3Universitäres Herz-Zentrum Bad Krozingen, Bad Krozingen, Germany; 4Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; and 5Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland

Received 8 September 2013; revised 19 March 2014; accepted 15 April 2014; online publish-ahead-of-print 19 May 2014

See page 2273 for the editorial comment on this article (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu201)

Aim It is unknown whether cardiac troponin (cTn) I or cTnT is the preferred biomarker in the early diagnosis of acute
myocardial infarction without ST segment elevation (NSTEMI).
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Methods In a prospective multicentre study, we measured cTnI and cTnT using clinically available high-sensitivity assays (hs-cTnI
and results Abbott and hs-cTnT Roche) and compared their diagnostic and prognostic accuracies in consecutive patients presenting
to the emergency department with acute chest pain. The final diagnosis was adjudicated by two independent cardiologists
using all information pertaining to the individual patient. The mean follow-up was 24 months. Among 2226 consecutive
patients, 18% had an adjudicated final diagnosis of NSTEMI. Diagnostic accuracy at presentation as quantified by the area
under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) for NSTEMI was very high and similar for hs-cTnI [AUC: 0.93,
95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92– 0.94] and hs-cTnT (0.94, 95% CI: 0.92–0.94) P ¼ 0.62. In early presenters (,3 h since
chest pain onset) hs-cTnI showed a higher diagnostic accuracy (AUC: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89–0.94) when compared with
hs-cTnT AUC (0.89, 95% CI: 0.86– 0.91) (P ¼ 0.019), while hs-cTnT was superior in late presenters [AUC hs-cTnT
0.96 (95% CI: 0.94– 0.96) vs. hs-cTnI 0.94 (95% CI: 0.93– 0.95); P ¼ 0.007]. The prognostic accuracy for all-cause
mortality, quantified by AUC, was significantly higher for hs-cTnT (AUC: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.78– 0.82) when compared
with hs-cTnI (AUC: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.73–0.77; P , 0.001).
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Conclusion Both hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT provided high diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. The direct comparison revealed small but
potentially important differences that might help to further improve the clinical use of hs-cTn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords Acute myocardial infarction † High-sensitive cardiac troponin

for  10% of all emergency departments (ED) consultations, even

Introduction though only 10 –20% of them eventually suffer from AMI. Rapid
Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a major cause of death and dis- identification of AMI is of paramount clinical importance for early
ability worldwide. Patients with symptoms suggestive of AMI account treatment and management.1

* Corresponding author. Tel: +41 613286549, Fax: +41 61265353, Email: christian.mueller@usb.ch
†
M.R.G. and R.T. have contributed equally and should be considered first author.
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. & The Author 2014. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/35/34/2303/2481219

by guest
on 03 July 2018
 2304
Cardiac troponins (cTn) I and T are proteins unique to heart and
specific and sensitive biomarkers of myocardial damage.2 – 4 Cardiac
troponin and 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) complement
patient history and physical examination in the evaluation of patients,
presenting with acute chest pain.5,6 A limitation of conventional cTn
assays is their low sensitivity at the time of patient presentation, owing
to a delayed increase in circulating levels requiring serial sampling for
6 –9 h in a significant number of patients.2 Recent studies found that
more sensitive cTn assays can improve the accuracy of the diagnosis
of AMI at the time of presentation to the ED.7,8
The cTn complex is immobilized on the thin filament of the
contractile apparatus and plays a critical role in the regulation of
excitation–contraction coupling in the heart.6 In AMI, cTnI and
cTnT are released from necrotic myocardium both as intact proteins
and degradation products.6 The clinical availability of fully developed
high-sensitivity assays for both cTnI (Abbott) and cTnT (Roche) in
Europe and other countries now for the first time provides the meth-
odological requirement to appropriately test the hypothesis whether
the substantial biochemical differences including molecular weight
between cTnI (23 kDa) and cTnT (35 kDa) could result in differ-
ent diagnostic and prognostic performances for both biomarkers.6,9
This hypothesis is based on preliminary findings from subgroup ana-
lyses as well as very recent observations with pre-commercial and still
experimental hs-cTnI assays.10 – 12
The aim of our large prospective multicentre study was to directly
compare the diagnostic accuracy of clinically available hs-cTnI and
hs-cTnT for NSTEMI, as well as their prognostic accuracy for all-
cause mortality during 24-month follow-up, in consecutive patients
presenting to the ED with acute chest pain.
Methods
Study design and population
Advantageous Predictors of Acute Coronary Syndrome Evaluation
(APACE) is an ongoing prospective international multicentre study (per-
formed in nine different study centres in Switzerland, Spain, and Italy)
designed and coordinated by the University Hospital Basel Switzerland
to advance the early diagnosis of AMI.7,10 – 12 From April 2006 to
August 2012, consecutive patients older than 18 years presenting to
the ED with symptoms suggestive of AMI with an onset or peak within
the last 12 h were recruited, after informed consent was obtained.
Patients with terminal kidney failure requiring regular dialysis were
excluded. For this analysis, patients were also excluded if (i) hs-cTnI
(Abbott) or hs-cTnT (Roche) levels were not available (n ¼ 661) or (ii)
the final diagnosis remained unclear after adjudication and at least one
cTn or hs-cTnT level was elevated (possibly indicating the presence of
AMI) (n ¼ 69) (iii) patients with a final diagnosis of ST segment myocar-
dial infarction (STEMI) (n ¼ 75).
The study was carried out according to the principles of the Declar-
ation of Helsinki and approved by the local Ethics Committees. The
authors designed the study, gathered, and analysed the data, vouch for
the data and analysis, wrote the paper, and decided to publish.
Routine clinical assessment
All the patients underwent a clinical assessment that included medical
history, physical examination, 12-lead ECG, continuous ECG monitoring,
pulse oximetry, standard blood test, and chest radiography. Levels of cTn
were measured at presentation and serially thereafter as long as clinically
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/35/34/2303/2481219
by guest
on 03 July 2018
M. Rubini Gimenez et al.
indicated. Timing and treatment of patients were left to discretion of the
attending physician.
Adjudicated final diagnosis
Adjudication of the final diagnosis was performed centrally in the core lab
(University Hospital Basel) for all patients twice: Once according to con-
ventional cTn levels used onsite (this method was used in the initial ana-
lyses to examine the performance of hs-cTn assays7,11 – 13 and once
including levels of Roche hs-cTnT in order to also take advantage of
the higher sensitivity and higher overall diagnostic accuracy offered by
hs-cTn assays,14,15 this allows the additional detection of small AMIs
that were missed by the adjudication based on conventional cTn
assays. Two independent cardiologists reviewed all available medical
records—patient history, physical examination, results of laboratory
testing, radiological testing, ECG, echocardiography, cardiac exercise
test, lesion severity, and morphology in coronary angiography—pertain-
ing to the patient from the time of ED presentation to 90-day follow-up. In
situations of disagreement about the diagnosis, cases were reviewed and
adjudicated in conjunction with a third cardiologist.
Non-ST segment myocardial infarction was defined and cTn levels
interpreted as recommended in current guidelines.16,17 In brief,
NSTEMI was diagnosed when there was evidence of myocardial necrosis
in association with a clinical setting consistent with myocardial ischaemia.
Myocardial necrosis was diagnosed by at least one cTn value above the
99th percentile (or for the conventional cTn assays above the 10% impre-
cision value if not fulfilled at the 99th percentile) together with a signifi-
cant rise and/or fall.9,18,19 The criteria used to define rise and/or fall in
conventional cTn and hs-cTnT are described in detail in the Supplemen-
tary material online, Methods.
All other patients were classified as ‘No NSTEMI’ for this analysis, in-
cluding in this group the categories of unstable angina (UA), non-cardiac
chest pain (NCCP), cardiac but non-coronary disease (e.g. tachyarrhyth-
mias, perimyocarditis), and symptoms of unknown origin with normal
levels of cTn and hs-cTnT (thereby ruling-out AMI).
Unstable angina was defined according to recent guidelines as follows:
(i) new onset (de novo) of severe angina, or recent destabilization of pre-
viously stable angina with at least severe (class III) angina characteristics
(crescendo angina), or post-MI angina, and (ii) either coronary artery
stenosis .70% on angiogram, or positive cardiac exercise testing, or in
ambiguous cases when AMI or sudden death occurred within 60 days,
and (iii) absence of alternative diagnosis.20
Measurement of high-sensitivity cardiac
troponin I and high-sensitivity cardiac
troponin T
Blood samples for determination of hs-cTnI (Abbott) and hs-cTnT
(Roche) were collected at presentation to the ED, in serum and EDTA
plasma tubes for hs-cTnT, and in serum for hs-cTnI. Additional samples
were collected at 1, 2, 3, and 6 h. When treatment required transferring
the patient to the catheter laboratory or coronary care unit, because the
diagnosis of AMI was certain, serial sampling was disrupted. After centri-
fugation, samples were frozen at 2808C until assayed in a blinded fashion
in a dedicated core laboratory. The Abbott hs-cTnI assay used was the
final pre-commercial release version of the ARCHITECT High Sensitive
STAT Troponin I assay (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA).
Samples were thawed, mixed, and centrifuged (for 30 min at 3000 RCF
and 48C for serum samples or for 10 min, twice, at 3000 RCF for
plasma samples) prior to analysis and according to manufacturer’s
instructions. The hs-cTnI assay has a 99th percentile concentration of
26.2 ng/L with a corresponding coefficient of variation (CV) of ,5%
and a limit of detection (LoD) of 1.9 ng/L.21 The Roche hs-cTnT assay
 Comparison of hs-cTn I and T
was measured on the Elecsys 2010 (Roche Diagnostics). The limit of blank
and LoD were determined to be 3 and 5 ng/L, respectively. The
99th-percentile of a healthy reference population was reported at
14 ng/L with an imprecision corresponding to 10% CV at 13 ng/L.22
This study does not include any measurements with hs-cTnT lots that
required the revision of the calibration curve.23 – 26 Calculation of the
glomerular filtration rate was performed using the abbreviated Modifica-
tion of Diet in Renal disease formula.27
Follow-up and prognostic endpoints
After hospital discharge, patients were contacted by telephone interview
or written form after 3, 12, and 24 months of follow-up. In case of
reported clinical events—in particular cardiovascular events—since
presentation to the ED, details were reviewed by asking the patients
and traced by establishing contact with the respective family physician
or treating institution. The primary prognostic endpoint was all-cause
mortality during 24-month follow-up; non-fatal AMI during the follow-up
was a secondary prognostic end-point. Information regarding death and
AMI was obtained from the national registry on mortality, the hospital’s
diagnosis registry or family physician’s records.
Statistical methods
The data are expressed as medians + IQR for continuous variables,
and for categorical variables as numbers and percentages. Con-
tinuous variables were compared with the Mann–Whitney U test,
and categorical variables using the Pearson x2 test. Receiver-
operating-characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed to assess
the sensitivity and specificity of both assays to compare their ability
to diagnose AMI and UA, as well as their prognostic accuracy. Prog-
nostic accuracy was quantified by three complementary methods:
AUC using the dichotomy of survival, AUC using survival analysis
techniques and estimate the concordance index (Harrell’s c) using
the survival model, and a Cox proportional-hazard model. The com-
parison of areas under the ROC curves (AUC) was performed as
recommended by deLong et al.28 Pre-defined subgroups include
patients with recent onset of symptoms (,3 h).7
All hypothesis testing was two-tailed and P-value of ,0.05 was
considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were per-
formed using SPSS for Windows 21.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA)
and MedCalc 9.6.4.0 (MedCalc software, Mariakerke, Belgium).
Results
Patient characteristics
The baseline characteristics of 2226 patients with suspected NSTEMI
are shown in Table 1. The adjudicated final diagnosis was NSTEMI in
18% of patients, UA in 10%, cardiac but non-coronary symptoms in
13%, non-cardiac cause in 54%, and symptoms of unknown origin
in 5%. Among the 399 NSTEMI patients, 85% had type I AMI and
15% had type II AMI.
Diagnostic performance of high-sensitivity
cardiac troponin I and T for acute
myocardial infarction
As shown in Figure 1, levels of the two hs-cTn at presentation were
significantly higher among the 399 patients who had NSTEMI
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/35/34/2303/2481219
by guest
on 03 July 2018
2305
compared with the 1827 patients in the no-NSTEMI group [hs-cTnI
median 115.4 ng/L (IQR: 21.7–627.9) vs. 3.5 ng/L (IQR: 2.2– 7.2)
P , 0.001; hs-cTnT median 65.0 ng/L (IQR: 28.0– 152.5) vs. 7.0 ng/
L (IQR: 4.0 –12.4) P , 0.001]. Diagnostic accuracy of hs-cTn for
NSTEMI, as quantified by the AUC, was similar for hs-cTnI and
hs-cTnT (AUC hs-cTnI 0.93, 95% CI: 0.92–0.94; AUC hs-cTnT
0.94, 95% CI: 0.92– 0.94; P ¼ 0.619; Figure 2A).
Diagnostic performance of high-sensitivity
cardiac troponin I and T in early presenters
Among patients presenting to the ED with chest pain onset within 3 h
(representing 25% of the overall cohort), hs-cTnI showed a signifi-
cantly higher diagnostic accuracy for NSTEMI compared with
hs-cTnT (Table 2). As shown in Figure 2B, among the early presenters
the AUC at presentation for hs-cTnI was 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89–0.94 vs.
hs-cTnT 0.89, 95% CI: 0.86–0.91 (P ¼ 0.019). In patients presenting
to the ED with chest pain onset of .3 h the AUC for hs-cTnI was sig-
nificantly lower compared with hs-cTnT [0.94 (95% CI: 0.93–0.95)
vs. 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94–0.96)] (P ¼ 0.007).
Diagnostic performance of high-sensitivity
cardiac troponin I and T during serial
sampling
During serial sampling as well as when combining the level obtained at
presentation with changes within the first hours, diagnostic accuracy
for NSTEMI of both assays further increased (Table 3). While individ-
ual measurements performed at 1, 2, and 3 h showed similar accur-
acy, hs-cTnI showed a slightly lower diagnostic accuracy during
serial sampling compared with hs-cTnT when combining the level
obtained at presentation with changes within the first hours (AUC
hs-cTnI 0.95, 95% CI: 0.94–0.96 vs. hs-cTnT 0.96, 95% CI: 0.95–
0.97, P ¼ 0.004) (Figure 3). In early presenters, serial sampling pro-
vided similar accuracy with both assays.
Diagnostic performance of high-sensitivity
cardiac troponin I and high-sensitivity
cardiac troponin T for unstable angina
Among all consecutive patients, 9.7% had a final diagnosis of UA.
Levels at presentation of both hs-cTn assays were significantly
higher among patients whose final diagnosis was UA compared
with those with NCCP, hs-cTnI median 6.4 ng/L (IQR: 3.6 –12.1)
vs. 3.0 ng/L (IQR: 1.9 –5.1) P , 0.001; hs-cTnT median 10.7 ng/L
(IQR: 6.9– 15.9) vs. 6.0 ng/L (IQR: 3.9 –9.7) P , 0.001). High-
sensitivity-cTnI had a slightly higher diagnostic accuracy for UA as
quantified by the AUC compared with hs-cTnT (0.74, 95% CI:
0.72 –0.77, vs. 0.72, 95% CI: 0.69– 0.74; P ¼ 0.07).
Correlation with angiographic findings
Among all patients in whom coronary angiography was performed
(n ¼ 530), 83% (n ¼ 441) had positive angiographic findings (one
vessel, two vessels or three vessels disease). The accuracy to
predict a positive angiographic finding as quantified by the AUC
was significantly higher for hs-cTnI when compared with hs-cTnT
(0.82, 95% CI: 0.78– 0.84, vs. 0.79, 95% CI: 0.76–0.81; P , 0.001).
 2306 M. Rubini Gimenez et al.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients

Characteristic All (n 5 2226) NSTEMI (n 5 399) No NSTEMI (n 5 1827) P-valuea

...............................................................................................................................................................................
Age, years
Median 62 72 60 ,0.001
IQR 50– 75 59– 72 48– 73
Risk factors, n (%)
Hypertension 1383 (62) 319 (80) 1064 (58) ,0.001
Hypercholesterolaemia 1111 (50) 273 (68) 838 (46) ,0.001
Diabetes 384 (17) 108 (27) 276 (15) ,0.001
Current or previous smoking 1367 (61) 254 (64) 1113 (61) 0.31
Family history 744 (33) 153 (38) 591 (32) 0.021
History, n (%)
Coronary artery disease 777 (35) 203 (51) 574 (31) ,0.001
Previous AMI 514 (23) 137 (34) 377 (21) ,0.001
Previous revascularization 612 (28) 147 (37) 465 (26) ,0.001
Peripheral artery disease 142 (6) 57 (14) 85 (5) ,0.001
Previous stroke 122 (6) 39 (10) 83 (5) 0.001
ECG findings, n (%)
Left bundle branch block 67 (3) 23 (6) 44 (2) ,0.001
ST-segment elevation 43 (2) 11 (3) 32 (2) ,0.001
ST-segment depression 232 (10) 121 (30) 111 (6) ,0.001
T-wave inversion 296 (13) 100 (25) 196 (11) ,0.001
No significant changes 1688 (76) 144 (36) 1464 (80) ,0.001
Body mass index (kg/m2)
Median 26 26 27 0.49
IQR 24– 30 24– 29 24– 30
eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2)
Median 85 74 87 ,0.001
IQR 68– 101 57– 94 71– 103
Medication at presentation, n (%)
ASA 809 (36) 200 (50) 609 (33) ,0.001
Vitamin K antagonists 191 (9) 41 (10) 150 (8) 0.18
Beta-blockers 770 (35) 174 (44) 596 (33) ,0.001
Statins 777 (35) 178 (45) 599 (33) ,0.001
ACEIs/ARBs 843 (38) 207 (52) 636 (35) ,0.001
Calcium antagonists 321 (14) 82 (21) 239 (13) ,0.001
Nitrates 257 (12) 85 (21) 172 (9) ,0.001

AMI, acute myocardial infarction; ECG, electrocardiogram; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; ASA, acetyl salicylic acid; ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB,
angiotensin receptor blocker.
Values are expressed in percentage or medians + IQR.
a
Comparisons between NSTEMI and no-NSTEMI patients.

Prognostic accuracy of high-sensitivity
cardiac troponin I and T for mortality
Patients were followed during a mean period of 24 months. During
this time a total of 153 patients died, 44% of them had a diagnosis
of NSTEMI and 56% had a different diagnosis than NSTEMI
(P , 0.001). Prognostic accuracy as quantified by the AUC was
high for both and significantly higher for hs-cTnT when compared
with hs-cTnI (0.80, 95% CI: 0.77–0.83, vs. 0.75, 95% CI: 0.73–0.79;
P , 0.001; Figure 4). The prognostic superiority of hs-cTnT was con-
sistent in the NSTEMI group (P , 0.001) and in the non-NSTEMI
group (P ¼ 0.001).
Similar findings were obtained regarding cardiac death. Among all
patients 3% (n ¼ 69) suffered from a cardiac death during the follow-
up. The accuracy to predict cardiac death as quantified by the AUC
was significantly higher for hs-cTnT when compared with hs-cTnI
(0.82, 95% CI: 0.80–0.84, vs. 0.79, 95% CI: 0.78–0.81; P ¼ 0.004.
Prediction of acute myocardial infarction
in the future
Among all patients in the no-NSTEMI group (n ¼ 1827), 3.6%
(n ¼ 65) suffered an AMI during the follow-up. The accuracy to
predict AMI among these patients as quantified by the AUC was

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/35/34/2303/2481219

by guest
on 03 July 2018
 Comparison of hs-cTn I and T
moderate for both and slightly higher for hs-cTnI when compared
with hs-cTnT (0.70, 95% CI: 0.68–0.72 vs. 0.66, 95% CI: 0.64–0.68;
P ¼ 0.07. Among all patients in the NSTEMI group (n ¼ 399),
14.8% (n ¼ 59) suffered an AMI during the follow-up. The accuracy
to predict AMI among these patients as quantified by the AUC was
very low for both (hs-cTnI 0.56, 95% CI: 0.51– 0.61 vs. hs-cTnT
0.54, 95% CI: 0.49–0.59; P ¼ 0.49).
Figure 1 Levels of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin according to
final diagnoses. Troponins levels at the time of patients’ presenta-
tion to the emergency department. The boxes represent median
and inter-quartile ranges. hs-cTn, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin;
AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CAD, coronary artery disease.
Figure 2 Diagnostic performance of high-sensitivity cardiac troponins I and T. Receiver-operation-characteristic curves show the diagnostic ac-
curacy of high-sensitivity cardiac troponins I and T for non-ST segment myocardial infarction at presentation to the emergency department with
acute chest pain in the overall cohort (A) and in the patients with a chest pain onset within 3 h (B).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/35/34/2303/2481219
by guest
on 03 July 2018
2307
Discussion
While hs-cTn assays still await approval for clinical use in the USA,
two fully developed hs-cTn assays have become clinically available
in Europe and many other countries in 2010 (hs-cTnT, Roche) and
2013 (hs-cTnI, Abbott). This large prospective multicentre study
directly compared the diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of these
clinically available hs-cTn assays in consecutive patients presenting
to the ED with acute chest pain. We report six major findings.
First, in our analysis both hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT showed very high
diagnostic accuracy for NSTEMI (AUC 0.93 and 0.94) already at pres-
entation, confirming and extending similar previous findings for both
clinically available as well as pre-commercial s-cTn and hs-cTn
assays.7,8,29 Secondly, in the overall group diagnostic accuracy at pres-
entation for NSTEMI was similar with both assays. This finding is of
major clinical relevance for clinicians, laboratory experts, and hospital
administrators as it will help these decision-makers in planning the
future laboratory strategies of their institutions. However, our data
also suggested that time from symptom onset may impact on the re-
spective diagnostic superiority of either test over the other: hs-cTnI
seemed to be superior in early presenters, while hs-cTnT seemed to
be superior in late presenters. It is important to highlight that the diag-
nostic superiority of hs-cTnI vs. T in early presenters methodologic-
ally is very sound, as our methodology introduced a small but
unavoidable bias in favour of hs-cTnT regarding diagnostic accuracy.
While local levels of both cTnI and cTnT were used for the adjudica-
tion, only hs-cTnT levels were available for the additional adjudica-
tion of small AMIs and more patients were enrolled in sites using
(hs-)cTnT rather than cTnI. In addition, the finding of diagnostic
superiority of hs-cTnI in early presenters is supported by similar
recent observations with s-cTnI in critical subgroups such as the
elderly and patients with pre-existing coronary artery disease11,12
 2308 M. Rubini Gimenez et al.

Table 2 Diagnostic accuracy of changes in

high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I vs. changes in
high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T in early presenters

Time point AUC (95% CI) AUC (95% CI) P-valuea

hs-cTnI hs-cTnT
................................................................................
0ha 0.92 (0.89– 0.94) 0.89 (0.86–0.91) 0.019
1hb 0.95 (0.92– 0.96) 0.95 (0.92–0.96) 0.97
0h+1hb 0.95 (0.92– 0.96) 0.94 (0.92–0.96) 0.74
1h+D0h21hb 0.95 (0.92– 0.97) 0.95 (0.93–0.97) 0.44
2hc 0.98 (0.95– 0.99) 0.97 (0.95–0.98) 0.88
0h+2hc 0.95 (0.92– 0.97) 0.96 (0.94–0.98) 0.05
2h+D0h22hc 0.96 (0.93– 0.98) 0.96 (0.94–0.98) 0.42
3hd 0.98 (0.94– 0.99) 0.98 (0.95–1.00) 0.60
0h+3hd 0.97 (0.94– 0.99) 0.99 (0.96–0.99) 0.18
3h+D0h23hd 0.98 (0.95– 0.99) 0.99 (0.96–0.99) 0.29

a ¼ 558; b ¼ 456; c ¼ 385; d ¼ 181.

a
Comparisons between hs-cTnI vs. hs-cTnT.
Figure 3 Diagnostic performance of high-sensitivity cardiac
troponin T and I within time. Receiver-operation-characteristic
curves displaying the diagnostic accuracy for non-ST segment myo-
cardial infarction of serial sampling of high-sensitivity cardiac tropo-
Table 3 Diagnostic accuracy of changes in nin I vs. high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T.
high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I vs. changes in
high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T

Time point AUC (95% CI) AUC (95% CI) P-valuea

hs-cTnI hs-cTnT
................................................................................
0ha 0.93 (0.92– 0.94) 0.94 (0.92–0.94) 0.62
1hb 0.95 (0.94– 0.96) 0.95 (0.94–0.96) 0.48
0h+1hb 0.95 (0.94– 0.96) 0.95 (0.94–0.96) 0.19
1h+D0h21hb 0.95 (0.94– 0.96) 0.96 (0.95–0.97) 0.004
2hc 0.95 (0.94– 0.96) 0.95 (0.94–0.96) 0.92
0h+2hc 0.94 (0.92– 0.95) 0.96 (0.95–0.97) 0.05
2h+D0h22hc 0.96 (0.95– 0.97) 0.97 (0.96–0.98) 0.06
3hd 0.95 (0.93– 0.97) 0.96 (0.95–0.98) 0.07
0h+3hd 0.95 (0.93– 0.97) 0.97 (0.95–0.98) 0.032
3h+D0h23hd 0.96 (0.94– 0.97) 0.97 (0.96–0.98) 0.017

a ¼ 2226; b ¼ 1735; c ¼ 1374; d ¼ 642.

a
Comparisons between hs-cTnI vs. hs-cTnT.

and therefore quite certainly real. Although early presenters can be

assumed to derive the greatest benefit from early revascularization,
it remains uncertain whether the magnitude of the difference is suffi-
cient to achieve clinical relevance. Even small differences in the diag-
nostic accuracy for AMI in early presenters may have sufficient effect
on the early management of patients. In addition, these differences
may impact also on, e.g. the negative predictive value of specific
rule-out algorithms.14 For their acceptance and adoption, clinicians
might see a difference between an algorithm that offers, e.g. a NPV
of 99.9% vs. an algorithm that offers an NPV of 99.5%. Thirdly,
during serial sampling, diagnostic accuracy of both hs-cTnI and
hs-cTnT further increased. While the direct comparisons of
hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT at the individual later time points showed
Figure 4 Prognostic performance of high-sensitivity cardiac
troponin T and I. Receiver-operation-characteristiccurves display-
ing the prognostic accuracy for all-cause mortality during the
24-month follow-up of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I and high-
sensitivity cardiac troponin T.
similar accuracy for both, the comparison of the respective combina-
tions of levels at presentation with serial measurements showed a
very small but statistically significant higher diagnostic accuracy of
hs-cTnT vs. hs-cTnI. Fourthly, comparing the diagnostic accuracy
of both assays to differentiate UA from NCCP, hs-cTnI was slightly

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/35/34/2303/2481219

by guest
on 03 July 2018
 Comparison of hs-cTn I and T
superior to hs-cTnT. However, it is important to highlight that overall
the diagnostic accuracy of hs-cTn for UA was only moderate, corrob-
orating the data reported in earlier pilot studies in which the adjudi-
cation of the final diagnosis was based on conventional cTn assays
only.7 Further studies are needed to define the best possible clinical
use of hs-cTn in conjunction with all other clinical information in the
differentiation of UA from NCCP. Fifthly, prognostic accuracy for all-
cause mortality during 24-month FU was high for both hs-cTnI and
T. In fact, hs-cTnT was significantly superior compared with
hs-cTnI. Our data corroborate and extend recent studies in which
hs-cTnT was compared with a s-cTnI and pre-commercial hs-cTnI
assays and shown to be the better prognosticator.9,10,30 – 32 As
follow-up was performed blinded to levels of both hs-cTnT and
hs-cTnI and revealed a substantial number of deaths, and was consist-
ent using three different statistical models to quantify prognostic ac-
curacy, also the finding of prognostic superiority of hs-cTnT over
hs-cTnI methodologically seems very robust. The observed differ-
ence in prognostic accuracy (DAUC 0.05) was consistent in the
NSTEMI and non-NSTEMI group and clearly seems clinically mean-
ingful.33 Sixthly, prognostic accuracy to predict non-fatal AMI
during 24-month FU among patients in the no-NSTEMI group was
low-to-moderate for both biomarkers, and slightly higher for
hs-cTnI compared with hs-cTnT. This finding is supported by a
similar observation in another chest pain cohort34 and highlights
the fact that different pathophysiological signals may be helpful in
the prediction of death vs. the prediction of acute plaque rupture
resulting in non-fatal AMI.
We can only speculate which pathophysiological differences
between cTnI and T or the specific hs-cTn assays used were the
major drivers for the observed differences. First, release of cTn
occurs first from the early appearing cytosol pool and subsequently
from the structural pool.6,35 – 37 Release from the latter is the reason
for the sustained elevations observed clinically in AMI and is a surro-
gate for irreversible break down of sarcomeric proteins.6 It is con-
ceivable that the early appearing pool contains larger amounts of
cTnI than cTnT, which would explain that cTnI seems to be the super-
ior signal in early presenters. On the other hand, if the cTnT signal
results to large extent from the irreversible break down of sarco-
meric proteins, this more profound injury could then be well under-
stood to be more closely linked to mortality when compared with a
signal that may be induced also from less severe injury. Recent obser-
vations from studies of exercise-induced myocardial ischaemia
support this hypothesis.38 Silent coronary plaque rupture with subse-
quent microembolization may be the possible mechanisms linking
hs-cTn with the risk of AMI in the future.39 – 41 As microembolization
represents a minor injury, it may result in a predominate release of
cTn from the early appearing cytosol pool and may therefore be
better reflected by levels of hs-cTnI. Patients experiencing silent
plaque rupture with microembolization may well be considered
at an increased risk of subsequent plaque ruptures that may not
heal spontaneously and that may result in clinically apparent AMI.
Secondly, we think it is unlikely that pre-analytical or analytical
issues of one of the assays played a relevant role as each assay
proved superior in at least one category. Measurements of hs-cTnT
were performed from two types of samples (serum and EDTA
plasma), while hs-cTnI was measured from only one type (serum).
While these sample types have been shown to reveal very high
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/35/34/2303/2481219
by guest
on 03 July 2018
2309
correlations close to 1,6,9 the use of two sample types might have
introduced a minor disadvantage for the hs-cTnT assay.
The observed differences should not distract from the enormous
amount of similarities between hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT, neither should
they be misinterpreted as a suggestion to use two hs-cTn assays in
parallel.5,29 In addition, it is important to highlight that hs-cTn must
always be used and interpreted in conjunction with all other clinical
information.
Some limitations of this study merit to be considered. First, we ana-
lysed the diagnostic and prognostic performance of cTnI and cTnT
using the two clinically available hs-cTn assays. Future studies will
need to evaluate whether our findings also apply to other hs-cTnI
assays once they will become clinically available. Secondly, since
our study was prospective and observational, we cannot determine
with precision the clinical benefit associated with the clinical use of
either hs-cTnI or hs-cTnT. Thirdly, as patients with terminal kidney
failure requiring dialysis were excluded from this study, we cannot
comment on the diagnostic and prognostic performance of cTnI or
cTnT in those patients. Fourth, our data set does not allow to
address the question whether and if to what extent the difference
in molecular weight (23 vs. 35 kDa) between cTnI and cTnT contrib-
uted to our findings.
In conclusion, both hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT provided high diagnostic
and prognostic accuracy. The direct comparison revealed small but
potentially important differences between the performance of the
cTnI molecule and the cTnT molecule that might help to further
improve the clinical use of hs-cTn in the management of patients
presenting with suspected AMI.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material is available at European Heart Journal online.
Acknowledgements
We thank the patients who participated in the study, the staff of
the EDs, the research coordinators, and the laboratory technicians
(particularly Esther Garrido, Melanie Wieland, Kathrin Meissner,
and Fausta Chiaverio) for their most valuable efforts. We also wish
to thank Stefanie von Felten for her help with the quantification of
the prognostic accuracy.
Funding
This study was supported by research grants from the Swiss National
Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, the Cardiovascular
Research Foundation Basel, the University Hospital Basel, Abbott,
Roche, Nanosphere, Siemens, 8sense, Bühlmann and BRAHMS.
Conflict of interest: Prof. Mueller has received research grants from
the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Swiss Heart Foundation,
the Cardiovascular Research Foundation Basel, 8sense, Abbott, ALERE,
Brahms, Critical Diagnostics, Nanosphere, Roche, Siemens, and the Uni-
versity Hospital Basel, as well as speaker honoraria from Abbott, ALERE,
Brahms, Novartis, Roche, and Siemens. We disclose that T.R. has
received research grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation
(PASMP3-136995), the Swiss Heart Foundation, the University of
Basel, the Professor Max Cloetta Foundation and the Department of In-
ternal Medicine, University Hospital Basel as well as speakers honoraria
from Brahms and Roche. All other authors declare that they have no
 2310
conflict of interest with this study. The sponsors had no role in the design
of the study, the analysis of the data, the preparation of the manuscript, or
the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
References
1. Nawar EW, Niska RW, Xu J. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey:
2005 emergency department summary. Adv Data 2007;386:1 –32.
2. Hamm CW, Goldmann BU, Heeschen C, Kreymann G, Berger J, Meinertz T. Emer-
gency room triage of patients with acute chest pain by means of rapid testing for
cardiac troponin T or troponin I. N Engl J Med 1997;337:1648 –1653.
3. Antman EM, Tanasijevic MJ, Thompson B, Schactman M, McCabe CH, Cannon CP,
Fischer GA, Fung AY, Thompson C, Wybenga D, Braunwald E. Cardiac-specific
troponin I levels to predict the risk of mortality in patients with acute coronary syn-
dromes. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1342 –1349.
4. Ohman EM, Armstrong PW, Christenson RH, Granger CB, Katus HA, Hamm CW,
O’Hanesian MA, Wagner GS, Kleiman NS, Harrell FE Jr, Califf RM, Topol EJ. Cardiac
troponin T levels for risk stratification in acute myocardial ischemia. GUSTO IIA
Investigators. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1333 –1341.
5. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, White HD. Joint ESCAAHAWHFTFftRoMI. Universal defin-
ition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:2173 –2195.
6. Thygesen K, Mair J, Katus H, Plebani M, Venge P, Collinson P, Lindahl B, Giannitsis E,
Hasin Y, Galvani M, Tubaro M, Alpert JS, Biasucci LM, Koenig W, Mueller C, Huber K,
Hamm C, Jaffe AS, Study Group on Biomarkers in Cardiology of the ESCWGoACC.
Recommendations for the use of cardiac troponin measurement in acute cardiac
care. Eur Heart J 2010;31:2197 –2204.
7. Reichlin T, Hochholzer W, Bassetti S, Steuer S, Stelzig C, Hartwiger S, Biedert S,
Schaub N, Buerge C, Potocki M, Noveanu M, Breidthardt T, Twerenbold R,
Winkler K, Bingisser R, Mueller C. Early diagnosis of myocardial infarction with sen-
sitive cardiac troponin assays. N Engl J Med 2009;361:858 – 867.
8. Keller T, Zeller T, Peetz D, Tzikas S, Roth A, Czyz E, Bickel C, Baldus S, Warnholtz A,
Frohlich M, Sinning CR, Eleftheriadis MS, Wild PS, Schnabel RB, Lubos E, Jachmann N,
Genth-Zotz S, Post F, Nicaud V, Tiret L, Lackner KJ, Munzel TF, Blankenberg S. Sen-
sitive troponin I assay in early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med
2009;361:868 –877.
9. Thygesen K, Mair J, Giannitsis E, Mueller C, Lindahl B, Blankenberg S, Huber K,
Plebani M, Biasucci LM, Tubaro M, Collinson P, Venge P, Hasin Y, Galvani M,
Koenig W, Hamm C, Alpert JS, Katus H, Jaffe AS. Study Group on Biomarkers in Car-
diology of ESCWGoACC. How to use high-sensitivity cardiac troponins in acute
cardiac care. Eur Heart J 2012;33:2252 –2257.
10. Haaf P, Reichlin T, Twerenbold R, Hoeller R, Rubini Gimenez M, Zellweger C,
Moehring B, Fischer C, Meller B, Wildi K, Freese M, Stelzig C, Mosimann T,
Reiter M, Mueller M, Hochgruber T, Sou SM, Murray K, Minners J, Freidank H,
Osswald S, Mueller C. Risk stratification in patients with acute chest pain using
three high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays. Eur Heart J 2013.
11. Reichlin T, Hochholzer W, Stelzig C, Laule K, Freidank H, Morgenthaler NG,
Bergmann A, Potocki M, Noveanu M, Breidthardt T, Christ A, Boldanova T,
Merki R, Schaub N, Bingisser R, Christ M, Mueller C. Incremental value of copeptin
for rapid rule out of acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:60–68.
12. Reiter M, Twerenbold R, Reichlin T, Benz B, Haaf P, Meissner J, Hochholzer W,
Stelzig C, Freese M, Heinisch C, Balmelli C, Drexler B, Freidank H, Winkler K,
Campodarve I, Gea J, Mueller C. Early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in
patients with pre-existing coronary artery disease using more sensitive cardiac
troponin assays. Eur Heart J 2012;33:988 –997.
13. Reiter M, Twerenbold R, Reichlin T, Haaf P, Peter F, Meissner J, Hochholzer W,
Stelzig C, Freese M, Heinisch C, Breidthardt T, Freidank H, Winkler K,
Campodarve I, Gea J, Mueller C. Early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in
the elderly using more sensitive cardiac troponin assays. Eur Heart J 2011;32:
1379 –1389.
14. Reichlin T, Schindler C, Drexler B, Twerenbold R, Reiter M, Zellweger C,
Moehring B, Ziller R, Hoeller R, Rubini Gimenez M, Haaf P, Potocki M, Wildi K,
Balmelli C, Freese M, Stelzig C, Freidank H, Osswald S, Mueller C. One-hour
rule-out and rule-in of acute myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac
troponin T. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:1211 –1218.
15. Haaf P, Drexler B, Reichlin T, Twerenbold R, Reiter M, Meissner J, Schaub N,
Stelzig C, Freese M, Heinzelmann A, Meune C, Balmelli C, Freidank H, Winkler K,
Denhaerynck K, Hochholzer W, Osswald S, Mueller C. High-sensitivity cardiac
troponin in the distinction of acute myocardial infarction from acute cardiac noncor-
onary artery disease. Circulation 2012;126:31–40.
16. Hamm CW, Bassand JP, Agewall S, Bax J, Boersma E, Bueno H, Caso P, Dudek D,
Gielen S, Huber K, Ohman M, Petrie MC, Sonntag F, Uva MS, Storey RF, Wijns W,
Zahger D, Guidelines ESCCfP, Bax JJ, Auricchio A, Baumgartner H, Ceconi C,
Dean V, Deaton C, Fagard R, Funck-Brentano C, Hasdai D, Hoes A, Knuuti J,
Kolh P, McDonagh T, Moulin C, Poldermans D, Popescu BA, Reiner Z,
Sechtem U, Sirnes PA, Torbicki A, Vahanian A, Windecker S, Document R,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/35/34/2303/2481219
by guest
on 03 July 2018
M. Rubini Gimenez et al.
Windecker S, Achenbach S, Badimon L, Bertrand M, Botker HE, Collet JP, Crea F,
Danchin N, Falk E, Goudevenos J, Gulba D, Hambrecht R, Herrmann J, Kastrati A,
Kjeldsen K, Kristensen SD, Lancellotti P, Mehilli J, Merkely B, Montalescot G,
Neumann FJ, Neyses L, Perk J, Roffi M, Romeo F, Ruda M, Swahn E, Valgimigli M,
Vrints CJ, Widimsky P. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syn-
dromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: The Task
Force for the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in patients present-
ing without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology
(ESC). Eur Heart J 2011;32:2999 –3054.
17. Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM, Bridges CR, Califf RM, Casey DE Jr,
Chavey WE 2nd, Fesmire FM, Hochman JS, Levin TN, Lincoff AM, Peterson ED,
Theroux P, Wenger NK, Wright RS, Smith SC Jr, Jacobs AK, Adams CD,
Anderson JL, Antman EM, Halperin JL, Hunt SA, Krumholz HM, Kushner FG,
Lytle BW, Nishimura R, Ornato JP, Page RL, Riegel B. American College of C, Ameri-
can Heart Association Task Force on Practice G, American College of Emergency P,
Society for Cardiovascular A, Interventions, Society of Thoracic S, American Asso-
ciation of C, Pulmonary R, Society for Academic Emergency M. 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 (Writing Committee to
Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable
Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) developed in collaboration with
the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angi-
ography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons endorsed by the
American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the
Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:e1 –e157.
18. Apple FS, Wu AH, Jaffe AS. European Society of Cardiology and American
College of Cardiology guidelines for redefinition of myocardial infarction: how
to use existing assays clinically and for clinical trials. Am Heart J 2002;144:
981 –986.
19. Apple FS, Jesse RL, Newby LK, Wu AH, Christenson RH. National Academy of Clin-
ical B, Damage ICfSoMoC. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and IFCC
Committee for Standardization of Markers of Cardiac Damage Laboratory Medicine
Practice Guidelines: Analytical issues for biochemical markers of acute coronary syn-
dromes. Circulation 2007;115:e352 –e355.
20. Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM, Bridges CR, Califf RM, Casey DE Jr,
Chavey WE II, Fesmire FM, Hochman JS, Levin TN, Lincoff AM, Peterson ED,
Theroux P, Wenger NK, Wright RS, Smith SC Jr, Writing Group M. Accf/Aha
Task Force M. 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 Car-
diology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.
Circulation 2011;123:e426–e579.
21. Koerbin G, Tate J, Potter JM, Cavanaugh J, Glasgow N, Hickman PE. Characterisation
of a highly sensitive troponin I assay and its application to a cardio-healthy population.
Clin Chem Lab Med 2012;50:871 –878.
22. Giannitsis E, Kurz K, Hallermayer K, Jarausch J, Jaffe AS, Katus HA. Analytical valid-
ation of a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T assay. Clin Chem 2010;56:254 – 261.
23. Hallermayer K, Jarausch J, Menassanch-Volker S, Zaugg C, Ziegler A. Implications of
adjustment of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T assay. Clin Chem 2013;59:572 –574.
24. Kuster N, Dupuy AM, Monnier K, Baptista G, Bargnoux AS, Badiou S, Jeandel C,
Cristol JP. Implications of adjustment of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T assay.
Clin Chem 2013;59:570–572.
25. Kavsak PA, Hill SA, McQueen MJ, Devereaux PJ. Implications of adjustment of
high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T assay. Clin Chem 2013;59:574–576.
26. Apple FS, Jaffe AS. Clinical implications of a recent adjustment to the high-sensitivity
cardiac troponin T assay: user beware. Clin Chem 2012;58:1599 –1600.
27. Levey AS, Coresh J, Greene T, Stevens LA, Zhang YL, Hendriksen S, Kusek JW, Van
Lente F. Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology C. Using standardized serum creatin-
ine values in the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating
glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:247 –254.
28. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or
more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric ap-
proach. Biometrics 1988;44:837–845.
29. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD. Joint ESCAA-
HAWHFTFftUDoM. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J
2012;33:2551 –2567.
30. Reichlin T, Twerenbold R, Reiter M, Steuer S, Bassetti S, Balmelli C, Winkler K,
Kurz S, Stelzig C, Freese M, Drexler B, Haaf P, Zellweger C, Osswald S, Mueller C.
Introduction of high-sensitivity troponin assays: impact on myocardial infarction in-
cidence and prognosis. Am J Med 2012;125:1205 –1213 e1.
31. Weber M, Bazzino O, Navarro Estrada JL, de Miguel R, Salzberg S, Fuselli JJ,
Liebetrau C, Woelken M, Moellmann H, Nef H, Hamm C. Improved diagnostic
and prognostic performance of a new high-sensitive troponin T assay in patients
with acute coronary syndrome. Am Heart J 2011;162:81– 88.
 Comparison of hs-cTn I and T
32. Mueller M, Celik S, Biener M, Vafaie M, Schwoebel K, Wollert KC, Januzzi JL,
Katus HA, Giannitsis E. Diagnostic and prognostic performance of a novel high-
sensitivity cardiac troponin T assay compared to a contemporary sensitive cardiac
troponin I assay in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Clin Res Cardiol 2012;
101:837 –845.
33. Zethelius B, Berglund L, Sundstrom J, Ingelsson E, Basu S, Larsson A, Venge P,
Arnlov J. Use of multiple biomarkers to improve the prediction of death from cardio-
vascular causes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2107 – 2116.
34. Aldous SJ, Richards M, Cullen L, Troughton R, Than M. Diagnostic and prognostic
utility of early measurement with high-sensitivity troponin T assay in patients pre-
senting with chest pain. CMAJ 2012;184:E260 –E268.
35. Remppis A, Scheffold T, Greten J, Haass M, Greten T, Kubler W, Katus HA. Intracel-
lular compartmentation of troponin T: release kinetics after global ischemia and
calcium paradox in the isolated perfused rat heart. J Mol Cell Cardiol 1995;27:
793 –803.
36. Adams JE 3rd, Schechtman KB, Landt Y, Ladenson JH, Jaffe AS. Comparable detection
of acute myocardial infarction by creatine kinase MB isoenzyme and cardiac troponin
I. Clin Chem 1994;40(7 Pt 1):1291 – 1295.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/35/34/2303/2481219
by guest
on 03 July 2018
2311
37. Labugger R, Organ L, Collier C, Atar D, Van Eyk JE. Extensive troponin I and T modi-
fication detected in serum from patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation
2000;102:1221 – 1226.
38. Kurz K, Giannitsis E, Becker M, Hess G, Zdunek D, Katus HA. Comparison of the new
high sensitive cardiac troponin T with myoglobin, h-FABP and cTnT for early identi-
fication of myocardial necrosis in the acute coronary syndrome. Clin Res Cardiol 2011;
100:209–215.
39. Korosoglou G, Lehrke S, Mueller D, Hosch W, Kauczor HU, Humpert PM,
Giannitsis E, Katus HA. Determinants of troponin release in patients with stable cor-
onary artery disease: insights from CT angiography characteristics of atherosclerotic
plaque. Heart 2011;97:823 –831.
40. Okada K, Ueda Y, Matsuo K, Nishio M, Hirata A, Kashiwase K, Asai M, Nemoto T,
Kodama K. Frequency and healing of nonculprit coronary artery plaque disrup-
tions in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2011;107:
1426 – 1429.
41. Takaoka N, Tsujita K, Kaikita K, Tayama S, Hokimoto S, Sugiyama S, Ogawa H. Sub-
sequent silent plaque rupture of nonculprit lesion in a patient with acute myocardial
infarction. Int J Cardiol 2012;157:e60– e62.