Padmanabhan Anand, Jones Curtis G, Curtis Brian R, Bougie Daniel W, Sullivan Mia J, Peswani Namrata, McFarland Janice G, Eastwood Daniel, Wang Demin, Aster Richard H
Medical Sciences Institute, BloodCenter of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Blood Research Institute, BloodCenter of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Department of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Medical Sciences Institute, BloodCenter of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Chest. 2016 Sep;150(3):506-15. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.02.641. Epub 2016 Feb 19.
Almost without exception, patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia/thrombosis (HIT) have antibodies that recognize platelet factor 4 (PF4) in a complex with heparin; however, many heparin-treated patients without HIT are also antibody-positive. A platelet activation test, the serotonin release assay (SRA), is useful for identifying a subset of antibodies that are platelet-activating and most likely to cause HIT. However, this "gold standard" assay for HIT diagnosis is technically demanding and is routinely available only through referral laboratories, limiting its availability for timely diagnosis and management.
We compared the diagnostic performance of the SRA with that of a technically simple platelet activation assay, the PF4-dependent P-selectin expression assay (PEA), which uses platelets pretreated with PF4 as targets for antibody detection. Archived serum samples from 91 patients for whom clinical information (HIT 4Ts [thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall, thrombosis, and other causes of thrombocytopenia] score) was available were used. Patients with an intermediate 4Ts score and a PF4 ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) optical density ≥ 2.0, or a high 4Ts score and a PF4 ELISA optical density ≥ 1.0, were considered HIT positive; others were designated HIT negative.
The PEA had higher diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve, 0.92 vs 0.82; P = .02) than the SRA, using this definition of HIT. Eleven of 16 serum samples that were PEA positive and SRA negative were HIT positive. Studies done with identical target platelets and serially diluted samples from patients with HIT showed that the PEA is inherently more sensitive than the SRA for the detection of platelet-activating antibodies.
The PEA is technically less demanding than the SRA and may be more accurate for the diagnosis of HIT.
几乎无一例外,肝素诱导的血小板减少症/血栓形成(HIT)患者体内存在可识别与肝素结合的血小板因子4(PF4)的抗体;然而,许多接受肝素治疗但未发生HIT的患者抗体也呈阳性。血小板活化试验,即5-羟色胺释放试验(SRA),有助于识别一组具有血小板活化作用且最有可能导致HIT的抗体。然而,这种用于HIT诊断的“金标准”试验技术要求高,通常仅通过转诊实验室才能进行,限制了其用于及时诊断和管理的可用性。
我们将SRA的诊断性能与一种技术上简单的血小板活化试验,即PF4依赖性P-选择素表达试验(PEA)进行了比较,该试验以用PF4预处理的血小板作为抗体检测靶点。使用了来自91例患者的存档血清样本,这些患者有临床信息(HIT 4Ts[血小板减少症、血小板计数下降时间、血栓形成及其他血小板减少症原因]评分)。4Ts评分为中等且PF4酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)光密度≥2.0,或4Ts评分为高且PF4 ELISA光密度≥1.0的患者被视为HIT阳性;其他患者被指定为HIT阴性。
按照这种HIT定义,PEA的诊断准确性(曲线下面积,0.92对0.82;P = 0.02)高于SRA。16份PEA阳性且SRA阴性的血清样本中有11份为HIT阳性。对来自HIT患者的相同靶血小板和系列稀释样本进行的研究表明,PEA在检测血小板活化抗体方面本质上比SRA更敏感。
PEA在技术上比SRA要求更低,可能在HIT诊断中更准确。