Cargando…

二种检测肝素/PF4复合物抗体免疫学方法在肝素诱导的血小板减少症中的诊断价值

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic values of latex immunoturbidimetric assay (LIA) and particle immunofiltration assay (PIFA) for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). METHODS: Samples from 94 patients with suspected HIT from May 2016 to July 2018 in our hospital were prospectively analyzed by th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Editorial office of Chinese Journal of Hematology 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7342243/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31207707
http://dx.doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2019.05.012
_version_ 1783555416884510720
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic values of latex immunoturbidimetric assay (LIA) and particle immunofiltration assay (PIFA) for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). METHODS: Samples from 94 patients with suspected HIT from May 2016 to July 2018 in our hospital were prospectively analyzed by the two immunoassays. Their medical records and further follow-up data were also collected and analyzed by our hematologists to make the 4Ts scores and confirm the diagnosis of HIT, respectively. Performance characteristics of the two immunoassays were assessed, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Their post-test probabilities (PTP) were also calculated based on the 4Ts score. RESULTS: Among 94 cases, 15 (16.0%) had a positive HIT, including 6 of 37 (16.2%) with an intermediate, and 9 of 15 (60.0%) with a high 4Ts score. PIFA operating characteristics were: sensitivity 100.0% (15/15), specificity 51.9% (41/80), PPV 28.3% (15/53), NPV 100.0% (41/41). The positive PTP in intermediate and high 4Ts score group were 28.7% and 75.7%, respectively, while negative PTP were all 0. At manufacturers' cutoffs, LIA operating characteristics were: sensitivity 66.7% (10/15), specificity 94.9% (75/79), PPV 71.4% (10/14) and NPV 93.8% (75/80). The positive and negative PTP in intermediate 4Ts score group were 71.8% and 6.3%, while 95.2% and 34.4% in high 4Ts score group, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis manifested that LIA was preferable than PIFA, and combining the 2 assays together was significantly better than single test. CONCLUSION: 4Ts score is still an important tool for the diagnosis of HIT. Combining clinical score with heparin/PF4 antibody assay can increase the accuracy of confirming or excluding HIT. Although PIFA is inferior to LIA in the diagnostic value, its user friendliness and 100% NPV have major advantages. Combining the 2 assays together can achieve a higher diagnostic value.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7342243
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Editorial office of Chinese Journal of Hematology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73422432020-07-16 二种检测肝素/PF4复合物抗体免疫学方法在肝素诱导的血小板减少症中的诊断价值 Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi 论著 OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic values of latex immunoturbidimetric assay (LIA) and particle immunofiltration assay (PIFA) for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). METHODS: Samples from 94 patients with suspected HIT from May 2016 to July 2018 in our hospital were prospectively analyzed by the two immunoassays. Their medical records and further follow-up data were also collected and analyzed by our hematologists to make the 4Ts scores and confirm the diagnosis of HIT, respectively. Performance characteristics of the two immunoassays were assessed, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Their post-test probabilities (PTP) were also calculated based on the 4Ts score. RESULTS: Among 94 cases, 15 (16.0%) had a positive HIT, including 6 of 37 (16.2%) with an intermediate, and 9 of 15 (60.0%) with a high 4Ts score. PIFA operating characteristics were: sensitivity 100.0% (15/15), specificity 51.9% (41/80), PPV 28.3% (15/53), NPV 100.0% (41/41). The positive PTP in intermediate and high 4Ts score group were 28.7% and 75.7%, respectively, while negative PTP were all 0. At manufacturers' cutoffs, LIA operating characteristics were: sensitivity 66.7% (10/15), specificity 94.9% (75/79), PPV 71.4% (10/14) and NPV 93.8% (75/80). The positive and negative PTP in intermediate 4Ts score group were 71.8% and 6.3%, while 95.2% and 34.4% in high 4Ts score group, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis manifested that LIA was preferable than PIFA, and combining the 2 assays together was significantly better than single test. CONCLUSION: 4Ts score is still an important tool for the diagnosis of HIT. Combining clinical score with heparin/PF4 antibody assay can increase the accuracy of confirming or excluding HIT. Although PIFA is inferior to LIA in the diagnostic value, its user friendliness and 100% NPV have major advantages. Combining the 2 assays together can achieve a higher diagnostic value. Editorial office of Chinese Journal of Hematology 2019-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7342243/ /pubmed/31207707 http://dx.doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2019.05.012 Text en 2019年版权归中华医学会所有 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (CC-BY-NC). The Copyright own by Publisher. Without authorization, shall not reprint, except this publication article, shall not use this publication format design. Unless otherwise stated, all articles published in this journal do not represent the views of the Chinese Medical Association or the editorial board of this journal.
spellingShingle 论著
二种检测肝素/PF4复合物抗体免疫学方法在肝素诱导的血小板减少症中的诊断价值
title 二种检测肝素/PF4复合物抗体免疫学方法在肝素诱导的血小板减少症中的诊断价值
title_full 二种检测肝素/PF4复合物抗体免疫学方法在肝素诱导的血小板减少症中的诊断价值
title_fullStr 二种检测肝素/PF4复合物抗体免疫学方法在肝素诱导的血小板减少症中的诊断价值
title_full_unstemmed 二种检测肝素/PF4复合物抗体免疫学方法在肝素诱导的血小板减少症中的诊断价值
title_short 二种检测肝素/PF4复合物抗体免疫学方法在肝素诱导的血小板减少症中的诊断价值
title_sort 二种检测肝素/pf4复合物抗体免疫学方法在肝素诱导的血小板减少症中的诊断价值
topic 论著
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7342243/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31207707
http://dx.doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2019.05.012
work_keys_str_mv AT èrzhǒngjiǎncègānsùpf4fùhéwùkàngtǐmiǎnyìxuéfāngfǎzàigānsùyòudǎodexuèxiǎobǎnjiǎnshǎozhèngzhōngdezhěnduànjiàzhí
AT èrzhǒngjiǎncègānsùpf4fùhéwùkàngtǐmiǎnyìxuéfāngfǎzàigānsùyòudǎodexuèxiǎobǎnjiǎnshǎozhèngzhōngdezhěnduànjiàzhí
AT èrzhǒngjiǎncègānsùpf4fùhéwùkàngtǐmiǎnyìxuéfāngfǎzàigānsùyòudǎodexuèxiǎobǎnjiǎnshǎozhèngzhōngdezhěnduànjiàzhí
AT èrzhǒngjiǎncègānsùpf4fùhéwùkàngtǐmiǎnyìxuéfāngfǎzàigānsùyòudǎodexuèxiǎobǎnjiǎnshǎozhèngzhōngdezhěnduànjiàzhí
AT èrzhǒngjiǎncègānsùpf4fùhéwùkàngtǐmiǎnyìxuéfāngfǎzàigānsùyòudǎodexuèxiǎobǎnjiǎnshǎozhèngzhōngdezhěnduànjiàzhí