Comparison of 13 Commercially Available Cardiac Troponin Assays in a Multicenter North American Study

Background: We examined the concordance of 13 commercial cardiac troponin (cTn) assays [point-of-care, high-sensitivity (hs), and conventional] using samples distributed across a continuum of results. Methods: cTnI (11 assays) and cTnT (2 assays) were measured in 191 samples from 128 volunteers. cTn assays included Abbott (iSTAT, STAT, and hs), Alere (Cardio 3), Beckman (AccuTnI+3), Pathfast (cTnI-II), Ortho (Vitros), Siemens (LOCI, cTnI-Ultra, Xpand, Stratus CS), and Roche [4th Generation (Gen), hs]. Manufacturer-derived 99th percentile cutoffs were used to classify results as positive or negative. Alternative 99th percentile cutoffs were tested for some assays. Correlation was assessed using Passing-Bablok linear regression, bias was examined using Bland-Altman difference plots, and concordance/discordance of each method comparison was determined using the McNemar method. Results: Regression slopes ranged from 0.63 to 1.87, y-intercepts from 0.00 to 0.03 ng/mL, and r values from 0.93 to 0.99. The cTnT methods had a slope of 0.93, y-intercept of 0.02 ng/mL, and r value of 0.99. For the cTnI assays, positive, negative, and overall concordance was 76.2%-100%, 66.0%-100%, and 82.9%-98.4%, respectively. Overall concordance between the 4th Gen cTnT and hsTnT assays was 88.9%. A total of 30 of the 78 method comparisons showed significant differences in classification of samples (P <0.001); the iSTAT showed 10, hsTnT showed 9, AccuTnI+3 showed 5, Xpand showed 5, and Stratus CS showed 1. Using alternative 99th percentile cutoffs to those listed by manufacturers lowered the method discordance by 6-fold, from 30 to 5 (all involved iSTAT). Conclusions: These data provide insight into characteristics of cTn methods and will assist the healthcare community in setting expectations for relationships among commercial cTn assays.