Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT04458155

Li-Hep vs. Non-Li-Hep Coated Transfer Device

This study is a prospective, diagnostic, cohort study within the standard care of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. It compares the analytical performance of Siemens® point-of-care high sensitive troponin I testing in venous, plasma and capillary sample types. The investigators hypothesize that there is a good correlation between the Siemens® POC HS cTnI assay results for the three sample types and that the bias between different POC sample types reduces from ~10% to ≤ 5% when using heparinized transfer device for the capillary sample.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

About this study

In September 2019, the validation study 1.0 started, in which the cTnI result of the Siemens POC device on three sample types are compared. Interim analysis of the sample comparison was performed by regression analysis using Passing and Bablock, and calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient.

The Li-hep Plasma vs Li-hep venous blood show a very good correlation of 1.00-1.03 with an R of >0.99, so the results between these sample types can be used interchangeably. For the capillary sample vs the Li-hep sample (both blood and plasma) the slope is 8-12% higher. With a 8-12% higher response, the capillary test results may not be interchangeably used with the other 2 sample types.

It is remarkable that capillary samples give a higher response, since it was anticipated that the result may be slightly lower due to the possible dilution by interstitial fluid. The investigators hypothesize that the presence of the Li-heparin anti-coagulant in the venous draw lead to a slight reduction of the apparent cTnI concentration. By using a heparin coated transfer device for the capillary samples instead of an uncoated transfer device, this hypothesis will be tested.

Who can participate

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age 18 years or older.
  • Referred to cardiac ED with chest pain suspected of ACS; inclusion at arrival (T=0) or one hour after arrival (T=1).
  • Subacute STEMI or NSTEMI patients admitted at the CCU who have an indication for coronary angiography but do not need rescue/emergency PCI.
  • STEMI patients who already underwent rescue/emergency PCI; inclusion post PCI.

Exclusion criteria

  • Out of hospital cardiac arrest.
  • Patients with sudden onset tachycardia and a frequency of 110 bpm or higher (supraventricular or ventricular).
  • Patients who are hemodynamically unstable or in which an acute non-coronary diagnosis is suspected, e.g. pulmonary embolism, thoracic aortic dissection etc.
  • Patients recently already admitted for the same set of symptoms at a previous healthcare institution before being transferred to the participating clinical site.
  • Patients not willing or not able to provide informed consent due to their medical condition as judged by the physician.

Treatment and study plan

Siemens® Point-of-care high sensitive troponin I analyzer

Device

Point-of-care (POC) high sensitive troponin I (HS cTnI) analysis in whole blood, plasma and capillary whole blood with the Siemens® device.

Primary outcomes

  1. Sample comparison

    Time frame: 30 days

    The primary objective is to compare the analytical performance of Siemens® point-of-care high sensitive troponin I testing in different sample types by using the coefficient of variation.

    This comparison will comprise Siemens® POC capillary vs. Siemens® POC venipuncture and vs. Siemens® POC plasma (Sample comparison).

    The primary objective will be achieved by taking:

    • Two capillary samples > one sample with a heparin coated transfer device (drawn from a finger of the right hand) and the other one with a non-heparin coated transfer device. (drawn from a finger of the left hand)
    • One extra venous blood sample > for POC venous and POC plasma analysis.

    Trained clinical staff will collect the different samples. All samples will be collected once, at one time point with a maximum of 10 minutes in between.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Bland-Altman method

    Time frame: 30 days

    To compare the analytical performance of Siemens® point-of-care high sensitive troponin I testing in different sample types by using the Bland-Altman method.

  2. Linear regression and Pearson's correlation.

    Time frame: 30 days

    The relationship between POC sample types by linear regression and Pearson's correlation.

  3. Overview baseline characteristics.

    Time frame: 30 days

    To create an overview of baseline characteristics of the population.

  4. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE)

    Time frame: 30 days

    MACE is is defined as a composite of cardiac death and myocardial infarction.

  5. Modified HEART score

    Time frame: 30 days

    To determine the modified HEART score retrospectively based upon POC capillary results in the population.

  6. Modified HEART score comparison

    Time frame: 30 days

    To compare the retrospectively determined modified HEART score based upon POC capillary heparin coated transfer device with the retrospectively determined modified HEART score based upon POC capillary non-heparin coated transfer device.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

VieCuri Medical Centre

Other

Collaborators

  • Siemens Corporation, Corporate Technology

Registry information

Official study title

Sample Comparison With Siemens® Point-of-care Device for Cardiac Troponin I Assay by Using a Heparin Coated Transfer Device vs. Non-heparin Coated Transfer Device at the Emergency Department (Validation Study 2.0)

Important dates

Study start
2020
Primary completion
2020
Study completion
2021
First posted
Jul 7, 2020
Registry last updated
Jun 10, 2022

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.