Mendler M H, Corbinais S, Sapey T, Lucas-Clerc C, Tiisma V, Guyader D, Deugnier Y, Le Treut A, Brissot P
Clinique des Maladies du Foie and INSERM U-522, Rennes, France.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1999 Dec;11(12):1405-11. doi: 10.1097/00042737-199912000-00011.
Serum albumin is a key parameter for prognosis in cirrhosis. We compared levels of serum albumin determined by both protein electrophoresis and immunonephelometry, with special reference to the Child-Pugh classification.
One hundred and thirty-one patients, including 39 with cirrhosis, were included prospectively during 2 months. The aetiology of cirrhosis was mainly alcoholism (67%) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) (18%). Serum albumin was determined simultaneously by electrophoresis (Hydrasys SEBIA following protein determination by the biuret reaction) and by immunonephelometry (BECKMAN Nephelometer). Values were compared by non-parametric tests.
For the whole population, electrophoretic and immunonephelometric values correlated (p = 0.85; P < 0.0001), but electrophoresis significantly overestimated serum albumin by a median 1.6 g/l (P < 0.0001) with a large spread in values (range, -3.9 to 12.7). Median overestimation in cirrhosis was 2.6 g/l (P < 0.0001; range, -2.0 to 10.2) and 1.0 g/l (P < 0.0001; range, -3.9 to 12.7) in patients without cirrhosis (difference, P < 0.02). For 6/39 (15.4%) patients with cirrhosis, this overestimation led to an underestimation in the Child-Pugh classification.
In our experience, electrophoresis can lead to serum albumin values which are significantly different compared to those obtained by immunonephelometry. This discrepancy may lead to an incorrect Child-Pugh classification. Therefore, in the follow-up of cirrhotic patients, serum albumin should be determined by immunonephelometry.
血清白蛋白是肝硬化预后的关键参数。我们比较了通过蛋白质电泳和免疫比浊法测定的血清白蛋白水平,并特别参考了Child-Pugh分级。
前瞻性纳入131例患者,其中包括39例肝硬化患者,为期2个月。肝硬化的病因主要为酒精中毒(67%)和丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)(18%)。通过电泳(采用比色法测定蛋白质后用Hydrasys SEBIA系统)和免疫比浊法(BECKMAN免疫比浊仪)同时测定血清白蛋白。采用非参数检验比较数值。
对于全体人群,电泳值和免疫比浊值具有相关性(p = 0.85;P < 0.0001),但电泳法显著高估血清白蛋白,中位数高估1.6 g/l(P < 0.0001),且数值范围差异较大(-3.9至12.7)。肝硬化患者的中位数高估为2.6 g/l(P < 0.0001;范围,-2.0至10.2),无肝硬化患者为1.0 g/l(P < 0.0001;范围,-3.9至12.7)(差异,P < 0.02)。对于6/39(15.4%)例肝硬化患者,这种高估导致Child-Pugh分级低估。
根据我们的经验,电泳法得出的血清白蛋白值与免疫比浊法相比有显著差异。这种差异可能导致Child-Pugh分级错误。因此,在肝硬化患者的随访中,应采用免疫比浊法测定血清白蛋白。