Institute of Cardiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland; Krakow Center for Medical Research and Technologies, John Paul II Hospital, Krakow, Poland.
Department of Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Thromb Res. 2021 Jan;197:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.10.014. Epub 2020 Oct 15.
Several methods for measuring fibrinolytic capacity in plasma have been developed yielding frequently inconsistent results. We investigated which factors determine fibrinolytic capacity in three plasma-based assays.
In 80 apparently healthy controls (aged 43 ± 10 years, 50 women [62.5%]) we evaluated fibrinolysis using three assays: (1) by Pieters et al. (CLT2018), (2) by Lisman et al. (CLT), and (3) by Carter et al. (Lys50). Coagulation factors and fibrinolytic proteins, including histidine-rich glycoprotein (HRG) and γ'-fibrinogen, were determined. Regression models were performed to identify determinants of lysis times.
Positive correlations were observed between CLT2018 and both CLT (r = 0.73) and Lys50 (r = 0.61), as well as between CLT and Lys50 (r = 0.46, all p < 0.001). The main determinants of both CLT2018 and CLT were plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), followed by thrombin-activatable fibrinolysis inhibitor (TAFI) and α-antiplasmin. Histidine-rich glycoprotein was a predictor of the longest-normal CLT2018 alone (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06). α-Antiplasmin and fibrinogen levels, followed by PAI-1 and TAFI determined Lys50. After adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index, C-reactive protein (CRP) was an independent predictor of the top quartiles of the three lysis times.
We showed that apart from PAI-1, TAFI, and α-antiplasmin, several other factors, in particular CRP, can affect the results of global fibrinolysis tests used in research. Our findings may help understand why the choice of a specific fibrinolysis assay can affect the presence and/or magnitude of intergroup differences in fibrinolytic capacity in a given disease state.
已经开发出了几种测量血浆中纤维蛋白溶解能力的方法,但这些方法常常得出不一致的结果。我们研究了哪些因素决定了三种基于血浆的检测方法中的纤维蛋白溶解能力。
在 80 名看似健康的对照者(年龄 43±10 岁,50 名女性[62.5%])中,我们使用三种检测方法评估纤溶:(1)由 Pieters 等人(CLT2018)、(2)由 Lisman 等人(CLT)和(3)由 Carter 等人(Lys50)。测定凝血因子和纤维蛋白溶解蛋白,包括组氨酸丰富糖蛋白(HRG)和γ'-纤维蛋白原。进行回归模型以确定溶解时间的决定因素。
CLT2018 与 CLT(r=0.73)和 Lys50(r=0.61)均呈正相关,CLT 与 Lys50 也呈正相关(r=0.46,均 p<0.001)。CLT2018 和 CLT 的主要决定因素均为纤溶酶原激活物抑制剂-1(PAI-1),其次为凝血酶激活的纤溶抑制物(TAFI)和α2-抗纤溶酶。组氨酸丰富糖蛋白是单独预测最长正常 CLT2018 的指标(OR 1.04,95%CI 1.02-1.06)。α2-抗纤溶酶和纤维蛋白原水平,其次是 PAI-1 和 TAFI 决定了 Lys50。调整年龄、性别和体重指数后,C 反应蛋白(CRP)是三种溶解时间最高四分位数的独立预测因素。
我们表明,除了 PAI-1、TAFI 和 α2-抗纤溶酶外,其他一些因素,特别是 CRP,可能会影响用于研究的整体纤溶试验的结果。我们的研究结果可能有助于理解为什么特定纤溶试验的选择会影响特定疾病状态下纤维蛋白溶解能力的存在和/或程度。