Walenga J M, Jeske W P, Fasanella A R, Wood J J, Ahmad S, Bakhos M
Cardiovascular Institute, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL 60153, USA.
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 1999 Oct;5 Suppl 1:S21-7. doi: 10.1177/10760296990050s105.
The characteristics of the currently available platelet function assays (platelet aggregation, serotonin release, and flow cytometry) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays that quantitate antiheparin-platelet factor 4 antibody titers were studied using sera collected from clinically diagnosed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia patients, patients without heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, patients with platelet immune disorders other than heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and normal individuals. The platelet aggregation assay was less sensitive than the serotonin release assay, which was less sensitive than the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (p < 0.001). Yet heparin-induced thrombocytopenia was identified by platelet aggregation assay in cases where the serotonin release assay and/or the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were negative. Patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis were more often positive than heparin-induced thrombocytopenia patients without thrombosis (p < 0.05). Positive platelet aggregation assay and serotonin release assay results were generally associated with a higher antibody titer; however, a minimum critical titer could not be identified. Over a 30-day period the percentage of positive responses did not change significantly even though clinical symptoms corrected in most heparin-induced thrombocytopenia patients. Multiple testing over several days enhanced the chance of detecting a positive, and combined results of the three assays further enhanced the positive response (p < 0.005). In patients without heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, false-positive results were obtained with the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. These data demonstrate that there is no direct correlation between the positive responses of these assays, that clinically positive patients can be missed by all assays, and the presence of antibody alone does not determine clinical heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. With these limitations, the combination of aggregation, serotonin release, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay testing with multiple samples offers the best chance of identifying a positive heparin-induced thrombocytopenia patient. Caution is advised for all assays as none is optimal.
利用从临床诊断的肝素诱导的血小板减少症患者、无肝素诱导的血小板减少症患者、除肝素诱导的血小板减少症外的血小板免疫紊乱患者以及正常个体采集的血清,研究了目前可用的血小板功能检测方法(血小板聚集、血清素释放和流式细胞术)以及定量抗肝素 - 血小板因子4抗体滴度的酶联免疫吸附测定法的特点。血小板聚集试验不如血清素释放试验敏感,而血清素释放试验又不如酶联免疫吸附测定法敏感(p < 0.001)。然而,在血清素释放试验和/或酶联免疫吸附测定法为阴性的情况下,通过血小板聚集试验仍可识别出肝素诱导的血小板减少症。与无血栓形成的肝素诱导的血小板减少症患者相比,患有肝素诱导的血小板减少症和血栓形成的患者更常呈阳性(p < 0.05)。血小板聚集试验和血清素释放试验的阳性结果通常与较高的抗体滴度相关;然而,无法确定最低临界滴度。在30天的时间里,即使大多数肝素诱导的血小板减少症患者的临床症状得到纠正,阳性反应的百分比也没有显著变化。连续几天进行多次检测增加了检测到阳性的机会,三种检测方法的综合结果进一步提高了阳性反应率(p < 0.005)。在无肝素诱导的血小板减少症的患者中,酶联免疫吸附测定法出现了假阳性结果。这些数据表明,这些检测方法的阳性反应之间没有直接相关性,所有检测方法都可能遗漏临床阳性患者,且仅抗体的存在并不能确定临床肝素诱导的血小板减少症。鉴于这些局限性,对多个样本进行聚集试验、血清素释放试验和酶联免疫吸附测定法的联合检测,为识别肝素诱导的血小板减少症阳性患者提供了最佳机会。由于没有一种检测方法是最优的,因此对所有检测方法都应谨慎使用。