Comparison of differing C-reactive protein assay methods and their impact on cardiovascular risk assessment

• Published in: The American journal of cardiology Vol. 95; no. 1; pp. 155 - 158
• Main Authors: Clarke, Jessica L., Anderson, Jeffrey L., Carlquist, John F., Roberts, Richard F., Horne, Benjamin D., Bair, Tami L., Kolek, Matthew J., Mower, Chrissa P., Crane, Ashle M., Roberts, William L., Muhlestein, Joseph B.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Elsevier Inc 2005; Elsevier; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Atherosclerosis (general aspects, experimental research); Biological and medical sciences; Blood and lymphatic vessels; Blood Chemical Analysis - methods; C-Reactive Protein - analysis; Cardiology; Cardiology. Vascular system; Coronary Artery Disease - blood; Coronary Artery Disease - diagnosis; Female; Health risk assessment; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction - blood; Myocardial Infarction - diagnosis; Predictive Value of Tests; Proteins; Risk Assessment; Sensitivity and Specificity; Vascular disease; Assay; Atherosclerosis; Risk factor; Cardiovascular disease; Method; Technique; C reactive protein; Comparative study
• ISSN: 0002-9149; 1879-1913
• DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.08.087

A medium-sensitivity assay for C-reactive protein (CRP) was compared with a high-sensitivity, enhanced immunoturbidimetric assay in 803 angiographically studied patients. Different absolute CRP values were found by the assays, but there was a high correlation by quartile rank and similar predictive values for death and myocardial infarction. This suggests that the conclusions of previous studies performed using the medium-sensitivity assay are still valid but that cross-study comparisons should use percentile rank.