4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Troponin T and I are not reliable markers of cardiac transplant rejection

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 233-237

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S1010-7940(02)00293-2

Keywords

heart transplantation; graft rejection; troponin T; troponin I

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Heart transplant recipients undergo a number of invasive endomyocardial biopsies to screen for rejection. Serurn assays of troponin T and/or I may provide a less invasive alternative. The purpose of this study was to evaluate troponin T and I as markers of cardiac transplant rejection. Methods: We conducted a prospective analysis comparing troponin T and I levels to biopsy results in heart transplant recipients. Plasma was assayed for troponin T and I preoperatively, on the first 3 postoperative days, and with each subsequent biopsy. Results: Twenty-nine patients entered the study. A total of 173 biopsies were performed at a mean follow-up of 129 +/- 9 days (range: 12-564 days). There were two rejection episodes (greater than or equal tograde 3), one in each of two patients. There were no significant relationships between troponin T or I and biopsy-proven rejection (greater than or equal tograde 3; P = 0.59 and 0.54, respectively). There were also no correlations between troponin T or I levels and biopsy grade (P = 0.40 and 0.92, respectively). Troponin T and I levels peaked on postoperative day 1 and fell to baseline over long-term follow-up with no peak in serum markers associated with rejection episodes. Donor ischemic time was significantly correlated to troponin T on postoperative days 1-3 (r = 0.58, P = 0.005; r = 0.61, P = 0.004; and r = 0.61, P = 0.003, respectively). Conclusions: Troponin T and I are not useful indicators of cardiac rejection, but do correlate with donor heart ischemic injury. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available