z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
How Well Do Laboratories Adhere to Recommended Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Myocardial Infarction: The CARdiac MArker Guidelines Uptake in Europe Study (CARMAGUE)
Author(s) -
Paul Collinson,
Angelika HammererLercher,
Janne Suvisaari,
Fred S. Apple,
R H Christenson,
Kari Pulkki,
Marja P. van DieijenVisser,
Christopher J. Duff,
H Baum,
Ana Stavljenić-Rukavina,
Kristin M. Aakre,
Michel R. Langlois,
Sanja Stanković,
Päivi Laitinen
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
clinical chemistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.705
H-Index - 218
eISSN - 1530-8561
pISSN - 0009-9147
DOI - 10.1373/clinchem.2016.259515
Subject(s) - medicine , myocardial infarction , troponin , biomarker , european union , business , chemistry , biochemistry , economic policy
BACKGROUND We undertook an assessment of current use of evidence-based guidelines for the use of cardiac biomarkers in Europe (EU) and North America (NA). METHODS In 2013–2014 a web-based questionnaire was distributed via NA and EU biochemical societies. Questions covered cardiac biomarkers measured, analytical methods used, decision thresholds, and use of decision-making protocols. Results were collated using a central database and analyzed using comparative and descriptive nonparametric statistics. RESULTS In EU, returns were obtained from 442 hospitals, 50% central or university hospitals, and 39% from local hospitals from 35 countries with 395/442 (89%) provided an acute service. In NA there were 91 responses (63.7% central or university hospitals, 19.8% community hospitals) with 76/91 (83.5%) providing an acute service. Cardiac troponin was the preferred cardiac biomarker in 99.5% (EU) and 98.7% (NA), and the first line marker in 97.7% (EU) and 97.4% (NA). There were important differences in the choice of decision limits and their derivations. The origin of the information was also significantly different, with EU vs NA as follows: package insert, 61.9% vs 40%; publications, 17.1% vs 15.0%; local clinical or analytical validation choice, 21.0% vs 45.0%; P = 0.0003. CONCLUSIONS There are significant differences between EU and NA use of cardiac biomarkers. This probably relates to different availability of assays between EU and NA (such as high-sensitivity troponin assays) and different laboratory practices on assay introduction (greater local evaluation of assay performance occurred in NA).

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom