Mastella G, Di Cesare G, Borruso A, Menin L, Zanolla L
Regional Cystic Fibrosis Center, Azienda Ospedaliera, Verona, Italy.
Acta Paediatr. 2000 Aug;89(8):933-7. doi: 10.1080/080352500750043378.
This study was to ascertain the reliability of sweat-testing by the Macroduct collection method combined with conductivity analysis (MCS) compared with the Gibson and Cooke technique (GCT). Sweat stimulation by pilocarpine iontophoresis was identical for both procedures, sweat being collected for 30 min on a filter paper on one forearm and in the coil of the Macroduct collector on the other. Chloride, sodium and potassium concentrations were chemically analysed both on paper-eluted and tube-collected sweat; the latter was also analysed using a conductivity analyser. Chemical analyses were compared with conductivity analyses. This prospective study was carried out on 318 subjects with MCS (118 CFs, 200 controls) and on 305 of them with the GCT (113 CFs, 192 controls). The pilocarpine iontophoresis produced adequate sweat in 96.4% of collections with GCT and in 90.9% with the MCS. Sensitivity and specificity of the Macroduct/conductivity system were comparable to the GCT. No patient detected by the GCT technique was considered negative by conductivity, but one GCT positive was "borderline" with the MCS. Six non-CF subjects identified as negative by the GCT (3.3%) were in the borderline range with the MCS.
Sweat-testing by the MCS has acceptable sensitivity and specificity when performed by trained CF sweat-testing technicians. Additional studies will be required to find out if these results can be confirmed in small clinics and hospitals where testing is done infrequently. Wherever the MCS is used all positive or borderline results should be confirmed by the GCT at a reference Cystic Fibrosis Center.
本研究旨在确定与吉布森和库克技术(GCT)相比,采用Macroduct收集法结合电导率分析(MCS)进行汗液检测的可靠性。两种方法通过毛果芸香碱离子电渗疗法进行汗液刺激的方式相同,汗液分别在前臂的滤纸和另一侧的Macroduct收集器盘管上收集30分钟。对滤纸洗脱汗液和试管收集汗液进行化学分析,测定其中氯化物、钠和钾的浓度;试管收集的汗液还使用电导率分析仪进行分析。将化学分析结果与电导率分析结果进行比较。本前瞻性研究纳入了318名接受MCS检测的受试者(118名囊性纤维化患者、200名对照),其中305名同时接受了GCT检测(113名囊性纤维化患者、192名对照)。采用GCT时,96.4%的汗液收集量充足;采用MCS时,这一比例为90.9%。Macroduct/电导率系统的敏感性和特异性与GCT相当。GCT技术检测出的患者用电导率分析均未判定为阴性,但有1例GCT阳性患者在MCS检测中处于“临界”状态。6名非囊性纤维化受试者被GCT判定为阴性(3.3%),在MCS检测中处于临界范围。
由训练有素的囊性纤维化汗液检测技术人员进行MCS汗液检测时,其敏感性和特异性可以接受。需要进一步研究以确定这些结果能否在检测频率较低的小型诊所和医院得到证实。无论何处使用MCS,所有阳性或临界结果均应在参考囊性纤维化中心通过GCT进行确认。