International Council for Standardization in Haematology Field Study Evaluating Optimal Interpretation Methods for Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time and Prothrombin Time Mixing Studies.

Robert C Gosselin, Gary W Moore, Geoffrey W Kershaw, Silmara Montalvão, Dorothy M Adcock
{"title":"International Council for Standardization in Haematology Field Study Evaluating Optimal Interpretation Methods for Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time and Prothrombin Time Mixing Studies.","authors":"Robert C Gosselin, Gary W Moore, Geoffrey W Kershaw, Silmara Montalvão, Dorothy M Adcock","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2023-0030-OA","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>The prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) are screening tests used to detect congenital or acquired bleeding disorders. An unexpected PT and/or APTT prolongation is often evaluated using a mixing test with normal plasma. Failure to correct (\"noncorrection\") prolongation upon mixing is attributed to an inhibitor, whereas \"correction\" points to factor deficiency(ies).</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To define an optimal method for determining correction or noncorrection of plasma mixing tests through an international, multisite study that used multiple PT and APTT reagents and well-characterized plasma samples.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>Each testing site was provided 22 abnormal and 25 normal donor plasma samples, and mixing studies were performed using local PT and APTT reagents. Mixing study results were evaluated using 11 different calculation methods to assess the optimal method based on the expected interpretation for factor deficiencies (correction) and noncorrection (inhibitor effect). Misprediction, which represents the failure of a mixing study interpretation method, was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>Percentage correction was the most suitable calculation method for interpreting PT mixing test results for nearly all reagents evaluated. Incubated PT mixing tests should not be performed. For APTT mixing tests, percentage correction should be performed, and if the result indicates a factor deficiency, this should be confirmed with the subtraction III calculation where the normal pooled plasma result (run concurrently) is subtracted from the mixing test result with correction indicated by a result of 0 or less. In general, other calculation methods evaluated that performed well in the identification of factor deficiency tended to have high misprediction rates for inhibitors and vice versa.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>No single method of mixing test result calculation was consistently successful in accurately distinguishing factor deficiencies from inhibitors, with between-reagent and between-site variability also identified.</p>","PeriodicalId":93883,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":"880-889"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2023-0030-OA","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context.—: The prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) are screening tests used to detect congenital or acquired bleeding disorders. An unexpected PT and/or APTT prolongation is often evaluated using a mixing test with normal plasma. Failure to correct ("noncorrection") prolongation upon mixing is attributed to an inhibitor, whereas "correction" points to factor deficiency(ies).

Objective.—: To define an optimal method for determining correction or noncorrection of plasma mixing tests through an international, multisite study that used multiple PT and APTT reagents and well-characterized plasma samples.

Design.—: Each testing site was provided 22 abnormal and 25 normal donor plasma samples, and mixing studies were performed using local PT and APTT reagents. Mixing study results were evaluated using 11 different calculation methods to assess the optimal method based on the expected interpretation for factor deficiencies (correction) and noncorrection (inhibitor effect). Misprediction, which represents the failure of a mixing study interpretation method, was assessed.

Results.—: Percentage correction was the most suitable calculation method for interpreting PT mixing test results for nearly all reagents evaluated. Incubated PT mixing tests should not be performed. For APTT mixing tests, percentage correction should be performed, and if the result indicates a factor deficiency, this should be confirmed with the subtraction III calculation where the normal pooled plasma result (run concurrently) is subtracted from the mixing test result with correction indicated by a result of 0 or less. In general, other calculation methods evaluated that performed well in the identification of factor deficiency tended to have high misprediction rates for inhibitors and vice versa.

Conclusions.—: No single method of mixing test result calculation was consistently successful in accurately distinguishing factor deficiencies from inhibitors, with between-reagent and between-site variability also identified.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际血液学领域研究标准化理事会评价活化部分凝血活素时间和凝血酶原时间混合研究的最佳解释方法。
上下文。凝血酶原时间(PT)和活化部分凝血活酶时间(APTT)是用于检测先天性或获得性出血性疾病的筛选试验。非预期的PT和/或APTT延长通常用与正常血浆混合试验来评估。混合后未能纠正(“不纠正”)延长归因于抑制剂,而“纠正”则指向因子缺乏(ies)。-:通过一项使用多种PT和APTT试剂和特性良好的血浆样品的国际多地点研究,定义一种确定血浆混合试验校正或不校正的最佳方法。-:每个试验点提供22份异常和25份正常供体血浆样本,使用当地PT和APTT试剂进行混合研究。使用11种不同的计算方法对混合研究结果进行评估,以评估基于因子缺陷(校正)和非校正(抑制剂效应)的预期解释的最佳方法。错误预测,这代表了混合研究解释方法的失败,进行了评估。-:对于几乎所有被评估的试剂,百分比校正是解释PT混合试验结果最合适的计算方法。不应进行培养PT混合试验。对于APTT混合测试,应进行百分比校正,如果结果表明存在因子缺陷,则应通过减法III计算来确认,即从混合测试结果中减去正常合并等离子体结果(并发运行),校正结果为0或更小。总的来说,其他在因子缺乏识别方面表现良好的计算方法往往对抑制剂有较高的错误预测率,反之亦然。-:没有一种混合试验结果计算方法能够始终如一地成功准确区分因子缺陷和抑制剂,同时也确定了试剂之间和位点之间的可变性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Differentiation Versus Grade for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms. The State of Pathology Student Interest Groups in Allopathic and Osteopathic Medical Schools in the United States: Current Practices and Opportunities for Improvement. The World Health Organization Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology: Review and Comparison to the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System. Diagnostic Pearls and Pitfalls in the Evaluation of Biopsies of the Pancreas. Notable Histologic Findings in a "Normal" Cohort: The National Institutes of Health Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) Project.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1