Favaloro Emmanuel J, Bonar Roslyn, Sioufi John, Wheeler Michael, Low Joyce, Aboud Margaret, Duncan Elizabeth, Smith Julian, Exner Tom, Lloyd John, Marsden Katherine
Haematology Laboratories, Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research (ICPMR), Westmead Hospital, New South Wales, Australia.
Semin Thromb Hemost. 2005 Feb;31(1):49-58. doi: 10.1055/s-2005-863805.
We have conducted a series of multilaboratory surveys during the last 6 years to evaluate testing proficiency in the detection of congenital and acquired thrombophilia. For lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing, participant laboratories used a panel of tests, including activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT; 100% of laboratories), kaolin clotting time (26 to 70%), and Russell's viper venom time (RVVT; 75 to 100%). Coefficients of variation (CVs) for assays ranged from 5 to 40%. RVVT assays appeared to be most sensitive and specific for detection of LA (fewer false-negatives or -positives), although laboratories performed best when they used a panel of tests. For congenital thrombophilia, tests evaluated comprised protein C (PC), protein S (PS), antithrombin (AT), and activated protein C resistance (APCR). Most participant laboratories performed PC using chromogenic (approximately 75%), or clot based (approximately 15%) assays, with few (< 10%) performing antigenic assessments. PS was most often assessed (approximately 60%) by immunological or antigenic assays, usually of free PS, or by functional or clot-based assays (approximately 40%). AT is usually assessed by functional chromogenic assays (approximately 95%). APCR was assessed using aPTT (approximately 50%) or RVVT (approximately 50%) clot-based assays, with the aPTT APCR typically performed using factor V-deficient plasma predilution, but the RVVT APCR typically performed without. Laboratories using the RVVT APCR generally performed better in detection of factor V Leiden-associated APCR, with the aPTT method group yielding higher false-negative and/or false-positive findings (approximately 5% of occasions). Some clot-based PC and PS assays appeared to be influenced by APCR status, and yielded lower apparent PC and PS levels with positive APC resistance. The overall error rate for PC, PS, and AT was approximately 2 to 8% (i.e., false-normal interpretations for deficient plasma or false-abnormal interpretations for normal plasma). The CVs for these assays ranged from 5 to 40%, with highest CVs typically obtained with PS assays.
在过去6年中,我们开展了一系列多实验室调查,以评估先天性和获得性血栓形成倾向检测的检测熟练度。对于狼疮抗凝物(LA)检测,参与实验室使用了一组检测方法,包括活化部分凝血活酶时间(aPTT;100%的实验室使用)、高岭土凝血时间(26%至70%)和蝰蛇毒时间(RVVT;75%至100%)。各检测方法的变异系数(CV)范围为5%至40%。RVVT检测似乎对LA的检测最敏感且特异(假阴性或假阳性较少),不过实验室在使用一组检测方法时表现最佳。对于先天性血栓形成倾向,评估的检测项目包括蛋白C(PC)、蛋白S(PS)、抗凝血酶(AT)和活化蛋白C抵抗(APCR)。大多数参与实验室采用发色底物法(约75%)或基于凝血的方法(约15%)进行PC检测,进行抗原性评估的较少(<10%)。PS最常通过免疫或抗原性检测(约60%,通常检测游离PS)或功能或基于凝血的检测(约40%)进行评估。AT通常通过功能发色底物法进行评估(约95%)。APCR采用基于aPTT(约50%)或RVVT(约50%)的凝血检测进行评估,aPTT APCR通常使用缺乏因子V的血浆预稀释进行,而RVVT APCR通常不进行预稀释。使用RVVT APCR的实验室在检测因子V Leiden相关的APCR方面通常表现更好,aPTT方法组产生更高的假阴性和/或假阳性结果(约5%的情况)。一些基于凝血的PC和PS检测似乎受APCR状态影响,在APC抵抗阳性时,PC和PS的表观水平较低。PC、PS和AT的总体错误率约为2%至8%(即对缺乏血浆的假正常解读或对正常血浆的假异常解读)。这些检测的CV范围为5%至40%,通常PS检测的CV最高。