ABSTRACT
Recently, autoimmunity, due to an increase in examination requests, has become an independent area of laboratory research, which needs management optimization in terms of quality, time, and flexibility. Therefore, we have evaluated the screening of extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) antibodies both with a chemiluminescence immunoassay and the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method, which was used in our laboratory, as a reference kit. The most important difference between these two methods is the possibility of processing serum samples with a random access system, which is different from batch methods.
Subject(s)
Antigens, Nuclear/blood , Antigens, Nuclear/immunology , Autoimmunity/immunology , Data Collection/methods , Immunoassay/methods , Luminescent Measurements/methods , Mass Screening/methods , HumansABSTRACT
The acute haemodynamic effects of 40 mg isosorbide dinitrate (10 subjects), 4 mg prazosin (20 subjects) and 50 mg dihydralazine (8 subjects) were compared in 24 patients with the clinical picture of chronic therapy-resistant cardiac failure (NY Heart Association stages III-IV). There was a fall in left-ventricular filling pressure of about 15% and right-atrial mean pressure of 21 and 24%, respectively, with isosorbide dinitrate and prazosin, while there was no change with dihydralazine. Cardiac output rose by 23% with dihydralazine and 20% with prazosin, but remained unchanged with isosorbide dinitrate. These data indicate that a reduction in pulmonary and systemic-venous congestion due to chronic decompensated cardiac failure can be achieved with isosorbide dinitrate and prazosin, while cardiac output can be improved only with prazosin and dihydralazine.
