Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 34: 2539-2542, 1988;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hall, M.
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, J. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hall, M.
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, J. T.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 34, 2539-2542, Copyright © 1988 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Immunoenzymometric assay of creatine kinase with monoclonal antibodies to the MB isoenzyme compared with electrophoresis

M Hall, M Neisler and JT Johnson
Department of Medical Technology, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg 39401.

We compare a "second-generation" immunoenzymometric assay (Tandem-E CKMB II) for creatine kinase (EC 2.7.3.2) MB with its electrophoretic (Beckman Paragon system) determination. In the former, two monoclonal antibodies are directed against the B and M subunits. We evaluated 502 samples from 253 patients. Precision, linearity, and analytical recovery for both assays were excellent. The two methods correlated well (r = 0.936). The reference interval for individuals with no suspected cardiac disorder was 0-6.0 micrograms/L; that for non-infarct patients was 0-18.0 micrograms/L. Peak CK-MB values determined by the two assays agreed for 95% of the patients, in terms of exceeding the normal reference interval or not. Diagnostic efficiencies were 86% (Tandem) and 88% (electrophoresis). The immunoenzymometric assay showed no cross reaction with other CK isoenzymes. Both assay methods performed well in detecting CK-MB, although there were some false positives by both methods, as judged from electrocardiographic results. When total CK for the Tandem assay exceeds 2000 U/L, we recommend calculation of a ratio (CK-MB, micrograms/L:total CK, U/L).




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.