Search

The term “single-sample rule-out” refers to the ability of very low concentrations of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) on presentation to exclude acute myocardial infarction with high clinical sensitivity and negative predictive value. Observational and randomized studies have confirmed this ability. Some guidelines endorse use of a concentration of hs-cTn at the assay’s limit of detection, while other studies have validated the use of higher concentrations, allowing this approach to identify a greater proportion of patients at low risk. In most studies, at least 30% of patients can be triaged with this approach. The concentration of hs-cTn varies according to the assay used and sometimes how regulations permit reporting. It is clear that patients need to be at least 2 hours from the onset of symptoms being evaluated. Caution is warranted, particularly with older patients, women, and patients with underlying cardiac comorbidities.

Additional file 1: Table S1. Bivariate correlations (Spearman’s rho) between baseline and exercise-induced CRP and baseline- and race characteristics. Table S2. Baseline characteristics of omega-3 vs CLO regular users. Nineteen subjects reported regular use of both supplement and are excluded from between group analysis. Table S3. Association between regular use of CLO and change in concentrations of Ln-transformed CRP (B (95% confidence interval)) compared with non- or sporadic users (n = 612). Table S4. Sensitivity analysis on the association between regular use of CLO as compared to never use (n = 437) of CLO and change in concentrations of ln CRP (B (95% confidence interval)). Table S5. Association between regular use of CLO (n = 154) vs regular users of other omega-3 fatty acid supplements (n = 101), and change in concentrations of Ln-transformed CRP (B (95% confidence interval). Figure S1. C-reactive protein increased from baseline with maximal values measured at 24 h post-race (median with 25th–75th percentiles). Figure S2. Creatin Kinase increase from baseline to 24 h post-race (median with 25th–75th percentile).

The joint consensus panel of the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) recently addressed present and future challenges in the laboratory diagnostics of atherogenic lipoproteins. Total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), LDL cholesterol (LDLC), and calculated non-HDLC (=total - HDLC) constitute the primary lipid panel for estimating risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and can be measured in the nonfasting state. LDLC is the primary target of lipid-lowering therapies. For on-treatment follow-up, LDLC shall be measured or calculated by the same method to attenuate errors in treatment decisions due to marked between-method variations. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]-cholesterol is part of measured or calculated LDLC and should be estimated at least once in all patients at risk of ASCVD, especially in those whose LDLC declines poorly upon statin treatment. Residual risk of ASCVD even under optimal LDL-lowering treatment should be also assessed by non-HDLC or apolipoprotein B (apoB), especially in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (2-10 mmol/L). Non-HDLC includes the assessment of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol and shall be reported in all standard lipid panels. Additional apoB measurement can detect elevated LDL particle (LDLP) numbers often unidentified on the basis of LDLC alone. Reference intervals of lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins are reported for European men and women aged 20-100 years. However, laboratories shall flag abnormal lipid values with reference to therapeutic decision thresholds.

ANTECEDENTES: A excreção urinária de albumina indica lesão nos rins e é reconhecida como fator de risco para a progressão das doenças renal e cardiovascular. A dosagem da albumina urinária chama a atenção sobre a necessidade clínica de relatos de resultados precisos e claramente descritos. O National Kidney Disease Education Program e a Federação Internacional de Química Clínica e Medicina Laboratorial (IFCC) reuniram-se para avaliar o estado atual das questões pré-analíticas, analíticas e pós-analíticas que afetam as dosagens da albumina na urina e para identificar as áreas que necessitam de melhorias. CONTEÚDO: A química da albumina na urina não é completamente compreendida. Diretrizes atuais recomendam a utilização da relação albumina/creatinina (RAC) como substituta para a coleta de amostras cronometradas de urina, frequentemente inadequadas. Os resultados da RAC são afetados pela preparação do paciente, pela hora do dia da coleta das amostras e não é padronizada. Foram relatadas consideráveis diferenças intermétodos para a dosagem tanto de albumina quanto de creatinina, mas a verdade é desconhecida, porque não existem procedimentos de referência para a dosagem de albumina e não há materiais de referência para qualquer um desses analitos na urina. Os intervalos de referência recomendados para a RAC não consideram as grandes diferenças intergrupos na excreção da creatinina (por exemplo, relacionadas com diferenças em idade, sexo e etnia), nem o aumento contínuo no risco relacionado com a excreção de albumina. DISCUSSÃO: Necessidades clínicas foram identificadas para a padronização de (a) métodos de coleta da urina, (b) dosagens de albumina e de creatinina na urina com base em um sistema de referência completo, (c) relatórios dos resultados dos testes e (d) intervalos de referência para a RAC. BACKGROUND: Urinary excretion of albumin indicates kidney damage and is recognized as a risk factor for progression of kidney disease and cardiovascular disease. The role of urinary albumin measurements has focused attention on the clinical need for accurate and clearly reported results. The National Kidney Disease Education Program and the IFCC convened a conference to assess the current state of preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical issues affecting urine albumin measurements and to identify areas needing improvement. CONTENT: The chemistry of albumin in urine is incompletely understood. Current guidelines recommend the use of the albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) as a surrogate for the error-prone collection of timed urine samples. Although ACR results are affected by patient preparation and time of day of sample collection, neither is standardized. Considerable intermethod differences have been reported for both albumin and creatinine measurement, but trueness is unknown because there are no reference measurement procedures for albumin and no reference materials for either analyte in urine. The recommended reference intervals for the ACR do not take into account the large intergroup differences in creatinine excretion (e.g., related to differences in age, sex, and ethnicity) nor the continuous increase in risk related to albumin excretion. DISCUSSION: Clinical needs have been identified for standardization of (a) urine collection methods, (b) urine albumin and creatinine measurements based on a complete reference system, (c) reporting of test results, and (d) reference intervals for the ACR.

background: Microalbuminuria (MA) is recognized as an important risk factor for cardiovascular and renal complications in diabetes. We sought to evaluate how screening for MA is conducted and how urine albumin (UA) results are interpreted in primary care internationally.methods: General practitioners (GPs) received a case history–based questionnaire depicting a male type 2 diabetes patient in whom UA testing had not been performed. Questions were related to type of urine sample used for UA testing, need for a repeat test, whether UA testing was performed in the office laboratory, and what changes in UA results were considered clinically important [critical difference (CD)]. Participants received national benchmarking feedback reports.results: We included 2078 GPs from 9 European countries. Spot urine samples were used most commonly for first time office-based testing, whereas timed collections were used to a larger extent for hospital-based repeat tests. Repeat tests were requested by 45%–77% of GPs if the first test was positive. Four different measurement units were used by 70% of participants in estimating clinically important changes in albumin values. Stated CDs varied considerably among GPs, with similar variations in each country. A median CD of 33% was considered clinically important for both improvement and deterioration in MA, corresponding to an achievable analytical imprecision of 14%, when UA is reported as an albumin/creatinine ratio.conclusions: Guidelines on diagnosing MA are followed only partially, and should be made more practicable, addressing issues such as type of samples, measurement units, and repeat tests.