Abstract:Background: high-sensitive cardiac TroponinI (hs-cTnI) is widely used for diagnosis of acute coronary syndromes. The latest recommendation for hs-cTnI determination is the protocol 0-1 h finalized to improve the rule out accuracy of the test. A Point of Care Testing able to guarantee these performances could be very useful due to reducing the turnaround time and ruling out patients suspected of ACS, especially by using biological matrices that are not required for centrifuge. The aim of our work is to compare the results for hs-cTnI obtained using different biological matrices and anticoagulants, obtained between Atellica® VTLi hs-cTnI POCT and Access AccuTnI+3 DxI800 performances, in order to establish a possible bias derived directly from these pre-analytical conditions. Methods: Li-heparinized pool samples were primary employ for hs-cTnI with Atellica® VTLi as whole blood, then centrifuged and tested on Atellica® VTLi and DxI800. K3EDTA pool samples were centrifuged and measured on DxI800 too. A comparison of methods was performed according to CLSI_EP-09A2 protocol. Constant and proportional errors were investigated with Deming regression. Bias between methods was evaluated with the Bland Altman test. Results: comparing whole blood lithium heparin results obtained with Atellica versus lithium heparin and K3EDTA plasma tested on DxI 800, the Deming regression revealed a proportional error, whereas in both cases Bland Altman highlighted a minimal underestimation. A similar performance was revealed when considering plasma lithium heparin tested on Atellica versus lithium heparin and K3EDTA plasma obtained with DxI800, confirming the same underestimation. Considering values close to the cut off, no significant differences were found. Conclusions: in the laboratory, the estimation of the bias of two different analyzers is pivotal. Once more this is crucial when different biological matrices and anticoagulants are employed for the analysis. Our study demonstrates that no significant differences among the two matrices are present when comparing Atellica and DxI800 performances.

Bias Analysis on Results of Total Protein Detected with Different Reagents

Comparabilily Study on Results of TP and ALB with Different Detecting Systems

Comparative Study on the Results with Different Biochemical Detecting Systems

Evaluation of Four Commercial Biuret Reagent Kits of Serum Total Protein by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry Reference Measurement Procedure.

The Contrast and Bias Estimation on the Result of Routine Biochemistry Items in Different Biochemical Testing Systems

Comparative experiment on detection of serum ALT and TP with dry and wet chemical method

Comparison analysis and bias evaluation on some determination results between wet type biochemistry and dry type biochemistry analyzers

Reproduction of reference method for serum total protein and evaluation of commercial reagent kits

The Comparative Study on the Results with Different Biochemical Detecting Systems

The comparison of the results of 9 routine biochemistry items on 3 different biochemical testing systems

The Comparative Study on the Two Methods of Detecting Procalcitonin

Evaluation of the Comparability of Wantai Wan200+ Instrument with Routine Laboratory Assays for 21 Different Analytes

Comparability of the Results of Pt-Inr with Local Mnpt and Apttr with Mnaptt on Different Coagulation Analyzers in China

Analysis of the comparability of the results of 26 serum biochemical indicators in two different biochemical analysis systems

A Comparison Study: Possible Bias in Troponin I Measurement Obtained with a Point of Care Testing and a Central Laboratory Analyzers Employing Different Biological Matrices and Anticoagulants

Study on the correlation between anti-TP antibody S/CO ratio by chemiluminescence immunoassay and positive results by confirmation assay

Measuring urinary protein with the new BioRad reagent kit: evaluation and comparison with five other methods

Critical appraisal of the CLSI guideline EP09c "measurement procedure comparison and bias estimation using patient samples"

Harmonization of the Results of Automated Coagulation Tests with Different Analyzers

Technical Note: Significant Positive Bias in Lower Concentrations but Negative Bias in Higher Concentrations in Testosterone Measurement Using Beckman Access Immunoassay Compared to a Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Reference Method

Harmonization of serum protein measurements with different immunoassays