Suppr超能文献

通过三种不同检测方法对稳定型冠状动脉疾病患者进行阿司匹林抵抗筛查。

Screening for aspirin resistance in stable coronary artery patients by three different tests.

作者信息

Chakroun Tahar, Addad Faouzi, Abderazek Fatma, Ben-Farhat Mohamed, Hamdi Sonia, Gamra Habib, Hassine Mohsen, Ben-Hamda Khaldoun, Samama Meyer M, Elalamy Ismail

机构信息

UR. Etude des fonctions plaquettaires, Regional Centre of Blood Transfusion, Farhat-Hached University Hospital, Sousse, Tunisia.

出版信息

Thromb Res. 2007;121(3):413-8. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2007.04.010. Epub 2007 Jun 5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Aspirin (ASA) failure to inhibit in vitro platelet function had been termed ASA resistance. The prevalence of this phenomenon as measured with different platelet function tests varies widely among studies.

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we propose to determine the prevalence of ASA non-responsiveness in stable coronary artery patients using three different tests.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred ninety-one patients with a stable coronary artery disease and receiving secondary ASA prophylaxis (250 mg/day) were tested. For each patient the ASA-induced platelet inhibition was determined using three different tests: Ivy Bleeding time (BT), collagen/epinephrine closure time (CEPI-CT; PFA-100, Dade-Behring) and urinary 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (uTxB2) excretion level. The agreement between these tests was evaluated by kappa statistics test.

RESULTS

The prevalence of biological ASA resistance was 15.7% (n=30), 20.4% (n=39) and 24.6% (n=47) by BT, PFA-100 and UTxB2, respectively. Only fourteen patients (7.3%) were non-responders for two tests: 6 (3.1%) BT/ PFA-100; 1 (0.5%) BT/UTxB2; 7 (3.7%) PFA-100/UTxB2). A poor agreement was found between these three methods and only 3 patients were resistant with all the tests (1.6%).

CONCLUSION

The lack of agreement supposed that different types of aspirin resistance exist. Thus, combination of two tests or more could be a primary solution for a better identification of ASA resistant patients. This hypothesis must be confirmed by a large-scale randomized study with clinically well-defined endpoints.

摘要

背景

阿司匹林(ASA)无法在体外抑制血小板功能被称为ASA抵抗。不同血小板功能检测方法所测得的这一现象的发生率在各研究中差异很大。

目的

在本研究中,我们提议使用三种不同检测方法来确定稳定型冠状动脉疾病患者中ASA无反应性的发生率。

患者与方法

对191例患有稳定型冠状动脉疾病并接受二级ASA预防治疗(250毫克/天)的患者进行检测。对每位患者使用三种不同检测方法测定ASA诱导的血小板抑制作用:艾维出血时间(BT)、胶原/肾上腺素封闭时间(CEPI-CT;PFA-100,达德-拜耳公司)以及尿11-脱氢血栓素B2(uTxB2)排泄水平。通过kappa统计检验评估这些检测方法之间的一致性。

结果

通过BT、PFA-100和UTxB2检测得出的生物学ASA抵抗发生率分别为15.7%(n = 30)、20.4%(n = 39)和24.6%(n = 47)。仅14例患者(7.3%)在两种检测中无反应:6例(3.1%)为BT/PFA-100;1例(0.5%)为BT/UTxB2;7例(3.7%)为PFA-100/UTxB2)。发现这三种方法之间一致性较差,仅有3例患者在所有检测中均表现为抵抗(1.6%)。

结论

缺乏一致性表明存在不同类型的阿司匹林抵抗。因此,联合两种或更多检测方法可能是更好识别ASA抵抗患者的主要解决方案。这一假设必须通过一项具有明确临床终点的大规模随机研究来证实。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验