Knapp M L, Feher M D, Carey H, Mayne P D
Department of Chemical Pathology, Westminster Hospital, Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School, London.
J Clin Pathol. 1990 Jun;43(6):508-10. doi: 10.1136/jcp.43.6.508.
Plasma samples from patients attending a lipid clinic (n = 14) and healthy control subjects (n = 21) were assayed for fibrinogen using an immunochemical method (radial immunodiffusion) and a turbidimetric assay based on the thrombin clotting technique. The patients had significantly higher plasma fibrinogen concentrations than controls by both methods, but there was significant overlap between the two groups when fibrinogen was assayed by the thrombin clotting technique; there was almost complete separation of the two groups using the immunochemical assay. This difference in overlap could not be attributed to the presence or absence of fibrinogen degradation products. These findings may have important implications for the choice of method for determining plasma fibrinogen when assays are used for the assessment of cardiovascular risk. It is recommended that plasma fibrinogen should be assayed by both an immuno-chemical and a thrombin clotting method.
采用免疫化学方法(放射免疫扩散法)和基于凝血酶凝血技术的比浊法,对脂质门诊患者(n = 14)和健康对照者(n = 21)的血浆样本进行纤维蛋白原检测。两种方法均显示,患者的血浆纤维蛋白原浓度显著高于对照组,但采用凝血酶凝血技术检测纤维蛋白原时,两组之间存在显著重叠;而采用免疫化学检测法时,两组几乎完全分离。这种重叠差异不能归因于纤维蛋白原降解产物的存在与否。当检测用于评估心血管风险时,这些发现可能对血浆纤维蛋白原检测方法的选择具有重要意义。建议同时采用免疫化学法和凝血酶凝血法检测血浆纤维蛋白原。