M Vogl1, S E Andert, M M Müller. 1. Institute of Laboratory Diagnostics, Kaiser Franz Josef Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to investigate the usefulness of tissue polypeptide specific antigen, an established tumor marker detecting proliferation of cells, for monitoring heart transplant recipients in order to detect infection and rejection early. METHODS: Tissue polypeptide specific antigen serum levels were compared with neopterin and C-reactive protein serum concentrations. RESULTS: When infections occurred, tissue polypeptide specific antigen serum concentrations were increased approximately five times (mean: 214 U/L, SD 145), while in instances of acute rejection crises, they were increased two times (mean: 76 U/L, SD 16 in comparison with the values during uncomplicated postoperative courses (mean: 45 U/L, SD 26). CONCLUSIONS: Tissue polypeptide specific antigen was the only investigated analyte that showed significant diagnostic validities when infections were compared with rejections. The discrimination between an uncomplicated postoperative course and a rejection or infection episode was only possible with a combination of the three analytes.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to investigate the usefulness of tissue polypeptide specific antigen, an established tumor marker detecting proliferation of cells, for monitoring heart transplant recipients in order to detect infection and rejection early. METHODS: Tissue polypeptide specific antigen serum levels were compared with neopterin and C-reactive protein serum concentrations. RESULTS: When infections occurred, tissue polypeptide specific antigen serum concentrations were increased approximately five times (mean: 214 U/L, SD 145), while in instances of acute rejection crises, they were increased two times (mean: 76 U/L, SD 16 in comparison with the values during uncomplicated postoperative courses (mean: 45 U/L, SD 26). CONCLUSIONS: Tissue polypeptide specific antigen was the only investigated analyte that showed significant diagnostic validities when infections were compared with rejections. The discrimination between an uncomplicated postoperative course and a rejection or infection episode was only possible with a combination of the three analytes.