4.7 Article

Cardiac troponin T and C-reactive protein as markers of acute cardiac allograft rejection

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 312, 期 1-2, 页码 31-39

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0009-8981(01)00590-3

关键词

troponin T; C-reactive protein; cardiac markers; heart transplantation; biopsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Due to myocyte damage and an associated inflammatory response, it is possible that cardiac troponin T and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations may correlate with the histologic grade of rejection in endomyocardial biopsy samples obtained from patients who have received a heart transplant. In this study, 704 blood samples were obtained from 145 different heart transplant recipients just prior to endomyocardial biopsy. Plasma specimens were assayed for troponin T and CRP concentration and the results compared with the assigned International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) histologic grade. Rejection was defined as an ISHLT grade of 3A or higher. The negative predictive values were near 80% in all cases, and a statistically significant increase in median troponin T concentration was observed across ISHLT grades. After the first month posttransplantation, the specificity of the troponin T test (cutoff 0.1 ng/ml) was 95% and increased to 98% when false positives seen in renal disease patients, were excluded. Both tests demonstrated poor sensitivity and positive predictive value for rejection. Neither CRP nor troponin T had sufficient sensitivity to serve as an alternative to endomyocardial biopsy in the diagnosis of acute cardiac allograft rejection. However, the troponin T test had a high specificity, especially when patients with renal insufficiency were excluded, and could serve as an adjunct test in this setting, When combined with a normal serum creatinine, a troponin T greater than or equal to 0.1 ng/ml prior to endomyocardial biopsy correlated with graft rejection in almost all cases, making biopsy unnecessary. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science BN. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据