4.0 Article

Comparison of Cardiac Troponin I and T, Including the Evaluation of an Ultrasensitive Assay, as Indicators of Doxorubicin-induced Cardiotoxicity

Journal

TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 8, Pages 1146-1158

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0192623313482056

Keywords

cardiovascular system; clinical pathology; rat; cardiac troponin; doxorubicin

Funding

  1. ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cardiac troponin (cTn) has been utilized to assess acute myocardial injury, but the cTn response in active/ongoing chronic injury is not well documented. The purpose of this study was to characterize the cardiac troponin I (cTnI), cardiac troponin T (cTnT), high-sensitivity cTnI, hematology, and clinical chemistry responses in rats treated with doxorubicin. Rats treated with 1, 2, or 3 mg/kg/week (wk) of doxorubicin for 2, 4, or 6 wks were sacrificed after 0, 2, or 4 wks of recovery and compared to untreated controls and animals treated with doxorubicin/dexrazoxane (50 mg/kg/wk) or etoposide (1 and 3 mg/kg/wk). The incidence and mean magnitude of cTn response increased with increasing dose and/or duration of doxorubicin treatment. Conversely, dexrazoxane/doxorubicin was partially protective for cardiotoxicity, and minimal cardiotoxicity occurred with etoposide treatment. Both cTnI and cTnT effectively identified doxorubicin-induced injury as indicated by vacuolation of cardiomyocytes of the atria/ventricles. The association between the cTn responses and histological changes was greater at the higher total exposures, but the magnitude of cTn response did not match closely with histologic grade. The high-sensitivity cTnI assay was also effective in identifying cardiac injury. Alterations occurred in the hematology and clinical chemistry parameters and reflected both dose and duration of doxorubicin treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available