专业止血中心出生聚集的影响因素和差异:多中心实验室比较的结果。

TH Open: Companion Journal to Thrombosis and Haemostasis Pub Date : 2022-08-22 eCollection Date: 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1055/a-1827-7025
Thorsten Kaiser, Karin Liebscher, Ute Scholz, Christian Pfrepper, Jeffrey Netto, Tim Drogies, Oliver Tiebel, Ralf Knöfler, Michael Krause
{"title":"专业止血中心出生聚集的影响因素和差异:多中心实验室比较的结果。","authors":"Thorsten Kaiser,&nbsp;Karin Liebscher,&nbsp;Ute Scholz,&nbsp;Christian Pfrepper,&nbsp;Jeffrey Netto,&nbsp;Tim Drogies,&nbsp;Oliver Tiebel,&nbsp;Ralf Knöfler,&nbsp;Michael Krause","doi":"10.1055/a-1827-7025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>  Light transmission aggregometry (LTA) is regarded as the gold standard in platelet function diagnostics. However, there is a relevant degree of interlaboratory variability in practical applications. <b>Objective</b>  The aim of the present study was to develop a practicable laboratory comparison on LTA and to analyze differences and influencing factors in regard to standardization in five specialized hemostaseological centers. <b>Methods</b>  The study was performed on 30 patients in total. Each center performed LTA on blood samples from six healthy volunteers (three men and three women) using the inductors collagen (Col), adenosine diphosphate (ADP), arachidonic acid (ARA), and ristocetin. The LTA was performed three times using different methods as follows: (1) International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommendations with identical reagents, (2) in-house protocols and the identical reagents; and (3) in-house protocols and in-house reagents. <b>Results</b>  A total of 396 measurements of 30 probands were performed. Even after standardization of the protocol and using identical reagents, there were significant differences between the centers regarding the final and maximum aggregation ( <i>p</i>  = 0.002 and <0.001) and further significant differences in the maximum and final aggregation according to the wavelength of the device used to measure the LTA (PAP-8: 430 nm, APACT 4004: 740 nm [ <i>p</i>  < 0.001 each]). Using identical reagents but individual inductor concentrations and laboratory protocols also resulted in different maximum and final aggregation. The largest differences were seen with Col and ristocetin; there were significant influences from the reagents' manufacturers in the results of aggregometry for the inductor Col ( <i>p</i>  < 0.01) but not for ADP, ARA, and ristocetin. <b>Conclusion</b>  In this study, we proved that there are significant influences from the used aggregometers, inductors concentrations, and manufacturers. These results illustrate the challenges and importance of standardization of LTA.</p>","PeriodicalId":22238,"journal":{"name":"TH Open: Companion Journal to Thrombosis and Haemostasis","volume":" ","pages":"e213-e220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9395241/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influencing Factors and Differences in Born Aggregometry in Specialized Hemostaseological Centers: Results of a Multicenter Laboratory Comparison.\",\"authors\":\"Thorsten Kaiser,&nbsp;Karin Liebscher,&nbsp;Ute Scholz,&nbsp;Christian Pfrepper,&nbsp;Jeffrey Netto,&nbsp;Tim Drogies,&nbsp;Oliver Tiebel,&nbsp;Ralf Knöfler,&nbsp;Michael Krause\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-1827-7025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>  Light transmission aggregometry (LTA) is regarded as the gold standard in platelet function diagnostics. However, there is a relevant degree of interlaboratory variability in practical applications. <b>Objective</b>  The aim of the present study was to develop a practicable laboratory comparison on LTA and to analyze differences and influencing factors in regard to standardization in five specialized hemostaseological centers. <b>Methods</b>  The study was performed on 30 patients in total. Each center performed LTA on blood samples from six healthy volunteers (three men and three women) using the inductors collagen (Col), adenosine diphosphate (ADP), arachidonic acid (ARA), and ristocetin. The LTA was performed three times using different methods as follows: (1) International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommendations with identical reagents, (2) in-house protocols and the identical reagents; and (3) in-house protocols and in-house reagents. <b>Results</b>  A total of 396 measurements of 30 probands were performed. Even after standardization of the protocol and using identical reagents, there were significant differences between the centers regarding the final and maximum aggregation ( <i>p</i>  = 0.002 and <0.001) and further significant differences in the maximum and final aggregation according to the wavelength of the device used to measure the LTA (PAP-8: 430 nm, APACT 4004: 740 nm [ <i>p</i>  < 0.001 each]). Using identical reagents but individual inductor concentrations and laboratory protocols also resulted in different maximum and final aggregation. The largest differences were seen with Col and ristocetin; there were significant influences from the reagents' manufacturers in the results of aggregometry for the inductor Col ( <i>p</i>  < 0.01) but not for ADP, ARA, and ristocetin. <b>Conclusion</b>  In this study, we proved that there are significant influences from the used aggregometers, inductors concentrations, and manufacturers. These results illustrate the challenges and importance of standardization of LTA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22238,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"TH Open: Companion Journal to Thrombosis and Haemostasis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e213-e220\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9395241/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"TH Open: Companion Journal to Thrombosis and Haemostasis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1827-7025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TH Open: Companion Journal to Thrombosis and Haemostasis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1827-7025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

光透射聚合法(LTA)被认为是血小板功能诊断的金标准。然而,在实际应用中存在一定程度的实验室间差异。目的建立一种可行的LTA实验室比较方法,分析5家专业止血中心在LTA标准化方面的差异及影响因素。方法对30例患者进行研究。每个中心使用诱导剂胶原蛋白(Col)、二磷酸腺苷(ADP)、花生四烯酸(ARA)和里斯托霉素对6名健康志愿者(3男3女)的血液样本进行LTA。LTA采用以下三种不同的方法进行:(1)国际血栓和止血学会推荐使用相同的试剂,(2)内部方案和相同的试剂;(3)内部方案和内部试剂。结果共进行了30个先证者的396次测量。即使在标准化方案和使用相同的试剂后,中心之间在最终和最大聚集方面存在显着差异(p = 0.002和p = p)。结论在本研究中,我们证明了使用的聚集仪,电感器浓度和制造商对最终和最大聚集有显着影响。这些结果说明了LTA标准化的挑战和重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Influencing Factors and Differences in Born Aggregometry in Specialized Hemostaseological Centers: Results of a Multicenter Laboratory Comparison.

Introduction  Light transmission aggregometry (LTA) is regarded as the gold standard in platelet function diagnostics. However, there is a relevant degree of interlaboratory variability in practical applications. Objective  The aim of the present study was to develop a practicable laboratory comparison on LTA and to analyze differences and influencing factors in regard to standardization in five specialized hemostaseological centers. Methods  The study was performed on 30 patients in total. Each center performed LTA on blood samples from six healthy volunteers (three men and three women) using the inductors collagen (Col), adenosine diphosphate (ADP), arachidonic acid (ARA), and ristocetin. The LTA was performed three times using different methods as follows: (1) International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommendations with identical reagents, (2) in-house protocols and the identical reagents; and (3) in-house protocols and in-house reagents. Results  A total of 396 measurements of 30 probands were performed. Even after standardization of the protocol and using identical reagents, there were significant differences between the centers regarding the final and maximum aggregation ( p  = 0.002 and <0.001) and further significant differences in the maximum and final aggregation according to the wavelength of the device used to measure the LTA (PAP-8: 430 nm, APACT 4004: 740 nm [ p  < 0.001 each]). Using identical reagents but individual inductor concentrations and laboratory protocols also resulted in different maximum and final aggregation. The largest differences were seen with Col and ristocetin; there were significant influences from the reagents' manufacturers in the results of aggregometry for the inductor Col ( p  < 0.01) but not for ADP, ARA, and ristocetin. Conclusion  In this study, we proved that there are significant influences from the used aggregometers, inductors concentrations, and manufacturers. These results illustrate the challenges and importance of standardization of LTA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Management of Urgent Bleeding in Patients with Hemophilia A: Focus on the Use of Emicizumab Disease Burden, Clinical Outcomes, and Quality of Life in People with Hemophilia A without Inhibitors in Europe: Analyses from CHESS II/CHESS PAEDs TH Open Continues to Highlight the State-of-the-Art on Thrombosis and Hemostasis with a Renewed Editorial Board The Effect of Rituximab on Antiphospholipid Titers in Patients with Antiphospholipid Syndrome. Potential for a Virtual Care Model in the Perioperative Management of Anticoagulant Therapy: A 5-Year Retrospective Clinic Review.
×
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