SORA

Advancing, promoting and sharing knowledge of health through excellence in teaching, clinical practice and research into the prevention and treatment of illness

How Well Do Laboratories Adhere to Recommended Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Myocardial Infarction: The CARdiac MArker Guidelines Uptake in Europe Study (CARMAGUE).

Collinson, P; Hammerer-Lercher, A; Suvisaari, J; Apple, FS; Christenson, RH; Pulkki, K; van Dieijen-Visser, MP; Duff, CJ; Baum, H; Stavljenic-Rukavina, A; et al. Collinson, P; Hammerer-Lercher, A; Suvisaari, J; Apple, FS; Christenson, RH; Pulkki, K; van Dieijen-Visser, MP; Duff, CJ; Baum, H; Stavljenic-Rukavina, A; Aakre, KM; Langlois, MR; Stankovic, S; Laitinen, P; Working Group for Cardiac Markers, European Federation of Clinic (2016) How Well Do Laboratories Adhere to Recommended Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Myocardial Infarction: The CARdiac MArker Guidelines Uptake in Europe Study (CARMAGUE). Clin Chem, 62 (9). pp. 1264-1271. ISSN 1530-8561 https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2016.259515
SGUL Authors: Collinson, Paul

[img] Microsoft Word (.doc) Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only
Available under License ["licenses_description_publisher" not defined].

Download (352kB)

Abstract

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).

Item Type: Article
Keywords: Biomarkers, Clinical Laboratory Techniques, Europe, Evidence-Based Practice, Guideline Adherence, Humans, Myocardial Infarction, North America, Troponin, Working Group for Cardiac Markers, European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, General Clinical Medicine, 1004 Medical Biotechnology, 1101 Medical Biochemistry And Metabolomics, 1103 Clinical Sciences
SGUL Research Institute / Research Centre: Academic Structure > Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute (MCS)
Academic Structure > Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute (MCS) > Cardiac (INCCCA)
Journal or Publication Title: Clin Chem
ISSN: 1530-8561
Language: eng
Dates:
DateEvent
September 2016Published
29 August 2016Published Online
16 June 2016Accepted
PubMed ID: 27460009
Web of Science ID: WOS:000382422200016
Go to PubMed abstract
URI: https://openaccess.sgul.ac.uk/id/eprint/108970
Publisher's version: https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2016.259515

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item