Roshan Tariq M, Stein Nancy, Jiang Xiu Y
Division of Hematopathology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary/Calgary Laboratory Services (CLS), Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2019 Jun;30(4):156-160. doi: 10.1097/MBC.0000000000000806.
: Activated protein C inactivates factor Va and VIIIa. Deficiency of this natural anticoagulant may result in recurrent venous thrombosis. Performance characteristics of clot-based and chromogenic protein C activity assays are different. The clot-based assay has limitations because of interference with coagulation inhibitors resulting in spuriously increased protein C levels or underestimation because of elevated levels of factor VIII and Factor V-Leiden mutation. The chromogenic assay is not influenced by such interferences but only detects functional defects of protein C that involve the active site rendering it insensitive to rare mutations. To compare two methods, we conducted a retrospective study from January 2015 to June 2017. Our results showed a good correlation between clot-based and chromogenic assay (R = 0.94 and r = 0.88). The study of agreement between the two methods by the Bland-Altman method showed that chromogenic method on an average measures 7.8% more protein C than that of clot-based. The results also showed that the bias between the two methods is significant. The positive trend noted was contributed by the values of less than 20% of protein C. Both clot-based and chromogenic assays had high sensitivity; however, the chromogenic assay showed better specificity (97%) as compared with the clot-based assay (93%). In conclusion, we recommend the chromogenic method as the assay of choice, which is also recommended by the College of American Pathologist Consensus Study over activated partial thromboplastin time-based assay. We have shown here that despite a good correlation between the two techniques, there is a difference as highlighted by the difference plots.
活化蛋白C可使因子Va和VIIIa失活。这种天然抗凝剂的缺乏可能导致复发性静脉血栓形成。基于凝血块和发色底物法的蛋白C活性检测方法的性能特征有所不同。基于凝血块的检测方法存在局限性,因为它会受到凝血抑制剂的干扰,导致蛋白C水平假性升高,或者由于因子VIII水平升高和因子V莱顿突变而导致低估。发色底物法不受此类干扰的影响,但只能检测涉及活性位点的蛋白C功能缺陷,使其对罕见突变不敏感。为了比较这两种方法,我们进行了一项从2015年1月至2017年6月的回顾性研究。我们的结果显示基于凝血块的检测方法和发色底物法之间具有良好的相关性(R = 0.94,r = 0.88)。通过Bland-Altman方法对两种方法之间的一致性进行研究表明,发色底物法平均比基于凝血块的检测方法测得的蛋白C多7.8%。结果还表明,两种方法之间的偏差具有显著性。观察到的正向趋势是由蛋白C值低于20%所导致的。基于凝血块的检测方法和发色底物法均具有较高的敏感性;然而,与基于凝血块的检测方法(93%)相比,发色底物法显示出更好的特异性(97%)。总之,我们推荐发色底物法作为首选检测方法,美国病理学家协会共识研究也推荐该方法优于基于活化部分凝血活酶时间的检测方法。我们在此表明,尽管这两种技术之间具有良好的相关性,但差异图突出显示了它们之间存在差异。