Smahi Motalib, De Pooter Neila, Hollestelle Martine J, Toulon Pierre
Hematology Department, Simone Veil Hospital, Eaubonne, France.
Hematology Department, Centre Hospitalier, Grasse, France.
J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Oct;18(10):2613-2621. doi: 10.1111/jth.14969.
One of the main advantages of using anti-Xa instead of activated partial thromboplastin time in monitoring of unfractionated heparin (UFH) therapy relies on its hypothesized standardization, with a unique therapeutic range defined to be 0.30 to 0.70 IU/mL. The aim of the present study was to compare the inter-reagent agreement of anti-Xa activity.
Citrate tubes were obtained from 104 inpatients on UFH. Plasma samples were stored frozen in aliquots at -70°C before being shipped to three accredited coagulation laboratories to be evaluated for anti-Xa activity using their routine assay(s). Pooled normal plasmas spiked with dilutions of the 6th International Standard of UFH to achieve anti-Xa activities up to 1.0 IU/mL were evaluated using the same techniques.
In the plasmas from patients on UFH, the median anti-Xa activity ranged from 0.37 IU/mL with one reagent to 0.57 IU/mL with another; results were in between (0.45 IU/mL) using two other reagents. Comparisons of results obtained using the different reagents demonstrated unacceptable bias up to 0.24 IU/mL between some reagents (41% difference). The concordance as whether anti-Xa activities measured using different reagents were within or outside the therapeutic range was between 0.411 and 0.939 (kappa). Similar discrepancy was demonstrated for anti-Xa activities when evaluating normal plasma spiked with the International Standard. A discrepancy of the same order of magnitude was demonstrated in the 2017 External Quality Assessment Program provided by the External Quality Control in Assays and Tests exercises.
The reported discrepancy between test results obtained using different anti-Xa assays clearly suggests a lack of standardization of that assay with potentially significant impact on the patients' anticoagulation.
在监测普通肝素(UFH)治疗时,使用抗Xa因子而非活化部分凝血活酶时间的主要优势之一在于其假定的标准化,其独特的治疗范围定义为0.30至0.70 IU/mL。本研究的目的是比较抗Xa活性的不同试剂间的一致性。
从104例接受UFH治疗的住院患者中获取枸橼酸盐管。血浆样本在-70°C下冷冻分装保存,然后运至三个经认可的凝血实验室,使用其常规检测方法评估抗Xa活性。使用相同技术评估加入第6国际标准UFH稀释液以达到高达1.0 IU/mL抗Xa活性的混合正常血浆。
在接受UFH治疗患者的血浆中,抗Xa活性中位数范围从一种试剂测得的0.37 IU/mL到另一种试剂测得的0.57 IU/mL;使用其他两种试剂时结果介于两者之间(0.45 IU/mL)。使用不同试剂获得的结果比较显示,某些试剂之间存在高达0.24 IU/mL的不可接受偏差(相差41%)。不同试剂测得的抗Xa活性是否在治疗范围内的一致性在0.411至0.939之间(kappa值)。在评估加入国际标准品的正常血浆时,抗Xa活性也显示出类似差异。在“检测与试验外部质量控制”活动提供的2017年外部质量评估计划中也显示出相同数量级的差异。
不同抗Xa检测方法获得的检测结果之间存在的差异清楚表明该检测方法缺乏标准化,这可能对患者的抗凝治疗产生重大影响。