Dear Michael I am sorry of not making clear that we are intending to change to single TnI measurement. For a period of time we are running the classical enzymes with TnI for a learning curve to be established. It is through this that my queries regarding timing came to light. --- "Vince, Michael" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Dr. Al-Jubouri : > My preference is to take two blood specimens, one > immediately after > admission and a second after an additional 6 - 8 > hours. I recognize that in > most cases you won't be hitting the peak value for > the cTnI, but as you > indicated the slope may give an approximation of > infarct size. As far as > the extra cost of doing two cTnIs rather than one, > have you considered NOT > doing CK and AST (and CKMB?)? At the risk of > displaying my undoubted > ignorance, I'm not at all sure what additional > information one gets by doing > CK and AST in addition to cTnI. > Our ER physicians would not be at all pleased if we > implemented a protocol > with a single cTnI timed for the peak value - they > insist on a protocol > which allows them to rule in/out AMI / ACS (in those > patients with equivocal > ECGs) as fast as possible, certainly in less than 12 > hours, and preferably > as soon as the patient comes through the hospital > doors! > > Hope this is of help. > > > > ===== Dr. M A Al-Jubouri Consultant Chemical Pathologist Whiston Hospital Prescot Merseyside L35 5DR UK __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%