Reporting %CK-MB rather than absolute CK-MB results assists in the detection of macroCK variants, associated proliferative and autoimmune pathologies, and their prognosis.
Does reporting %CK-MB rather than absolute CK-MB improve the detection of macroCK and avoid false elevations in patients undergoing myocardial injury evaluation?
Reporting %CK-MB instead of absolute values may prevent false-positive myocardial injury diagnoses in patients with non-cardiac conditions when using immunoinhibition assays.
The clinical utility of measuring the Muscle Brain (MB) isoenzyme of creatine kinase (CK) in the diagnosis of myocardial injury is well established. CK/CK-MB measurement in combination or CK-MB alone is widely used and reporting the results of CK-MB in absolute unit is the common current practice. CK-MB is widely measured by "Immunoinhibition" in India, which gives falsely elevated CK-MB results in the following circumstances: Central nervous system damage, childbirth, macro CK-immunoglobulin complex, in patients with carcinoma of various organs, such as prostate carcinoma and other adenocarcinomas. But, reporting %CK-MB rather than the absolute CK-MB results assists in detection of macroCK (or CK variants), associated proliferative and autoimmune pathologies and their prognosis.
Vivekanandan et al. (Fri,) conducted a review in Myocardial injury. Reporting %CK-MB vs. Reporting absolute CK-MB was evaluated. Reporting %CK-MB rather than absolute CK-MB results assists in the detection of macroCK variants, associated proliferative and autoimmune pathologies, and their prognosis.