血小板减少症血液样本中的护理点血小板功能测试的测定有效性。

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Biochemia Medica Pub Date : 2022-06-15 DOI:10.11613/BM.2022.020713
Conrad Lacom, Alexander Tolios, Markus W Löffler, Beate Eichelberger, Peter Quehenberger, Eva Schaden, Marion Wiegele
{"title":"血小板减少症血液样本中的护理点血小板功能测试的测定有效性。","authors":"Conrad Lacom, Alexander Tolios, Markus W Löffler, Beate Eichelberger, Peter Quehenberger, Eva Schaden, Marion Wiegele","doi":"10.11613/BM.2022.020713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Point-of-care (POC) platelet function tests are faster and easier to perform than in-depth assessment by flow cytometry. At low platelet counts, however, POC tests are prone to assess platelet function incorrectly. Lower limits of platelet count required to obtain valid test results were defined and a testing method to facilitate comparability between different tests was established.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We assessed platelet function in whole blood samples of healthy volunteers at decreasing platelet counts (> 100, 80-100, 50-80, 30-50 and < 30 x10<sup>9</sup>/L) using two POC tests: impedance aggregometry and <i>in-vitro</i> bleeding time. Flow cytometry served as the gold standard. The number of platelets needed to reach 50% of the maximum function (ED<sub>50</sub>) and the lower reference limit (ED<sub>ref</sub>) were calculated to define limits of test validity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The minimal platelet count required for reliable test results was 100 x10<sup>9</sup>/L for impedance aggregometry and <i>in-vitro</i> bleeding time but only 30 x10<sup>9</sup>/L for flow cytometry. Comparison of ED<sub>50</sub> and ED<sub>ref</sub> showed significantly lower values for flow cytometry than either POC test (P value < 0.05) but no difference between POC tests nor between the used platelet agonists within a test method.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Calculating the ED<sub>50</sub> and ED<sub>ref</sub> provides an effective way to compare values from different platelet function assays. Flow cytometry enables correct platelet function testing as long as platelet count is > 30 x10<sup>9</sup>/L whereas impedance aggregometry and <i>in-vitro</i> bleeding time are inconsistent unless platelet count is > 100 x10<sup>9</sup>/L.</p>","PeriodicalId":9021,"journal":{"name":"Biochemia Medica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9195599/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assay validity of point-of-care platelet function tests in thrombocytopenic blood samples.\",\"authors\":\"Conrad Lacom, Alexander Tolios, Markus W Löffler, Beate Eichelberger, Peter Quehenberger, Eva Schaden, Marion Wiegele\",\"doi\":\"10.11613/BM.2022.020713\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Point-of-care (POC) platelet function tests are faster and easier to perform than in-depth assessment by flow cytometry. At low platelet counts, however, POC tests are prone to assess platelet function incorrectly. Lower limits of platelet count required to obtain valid test results were defined and a testing method to facilitate comparability between different tests was established.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We assessed platelet function in whole blood samples of healthy volunteers at decreasing platelet counts (> 100, 80-100, 50-80, 30-50 and < 30 x10<sup>9</sup>/L) using two POC tests: impedance aggregometry and <i>in-vitro</i> bleeding time. Flow cytometry served as the gold standard. The number of platelets needed to reach 50% of the maximum function (ED<sub>50</sub>) and the lower reference limit (ED<sub>ref</sub>) were calculated to define limits of test validity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The minimal platelet count required for reliable test results was 100 x10<sup>9</sup>/L for impedance aggregometry and <i>in-vitro</i> bleeding time but only 30 x10<sup>9</sup>/L for flow cytometry. Comparison of ED<sub>50</sub> and ED<sub>ref</sub> showed significantly lower values for flow cytometry than either POC test (P value < 0.05) but no difference between POC tests nor between the used platelet agonists within a test method.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Calculating the ED<sub>50</sub> and ED<sub>ref</sub> provides an effective way to compare values from different platelet function assays. Flow cytometry enables correct platelet function testing as long as platelet count is > 30 x10<sup>9</sup>/L whereas impedance aggregometry and <i>in-vitro</i> bleeding time are inconsistent unless platelet count is > 100 x10<sup>9</sup>/L.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biochemia Medica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9195599/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biochemia Medica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2022.020713\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biochemia Medica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2022.020713","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:与流式细胞术的深入评估相比,床旁(POC)血小板功能检测更快、更容易进行。然而,在血小板计数较低时,POC 检测容易错误地评估血小板功能。我们定义了获得有效测试结果所需的血小板计数下限,并建立了一种测试方法,以促进不同测试之间的可比性:我们使用两种 POC 检测方法:阻抗聚集仪和体外出血时间,评估了健康志愿者全血样本中血小板计数递减(> 100、80-100、50-80、30-50 和 < 30 x109/L)时的血小板功能。流式细胞术是金标准。计算达到最大功能的 50%所需的血小板数量(ED50)和参考下限(EDref),以确定测试有效性的界限:结果:阻抗聚集测定法和体外出血时间法得出可靠检测结果所需的最低血小板数量为 100 x109/L,而流式细胞测定法仅为 30 x109/L。ED50 和 EDref 的比较结果显示,流式细胞仪的 ED50 和 EDref 值明显低于任何一种 POC 检测方法(P 值<0.05),但 POC 检测方法之间以及检测方法中使用的血小板激动剂之间没有差异:结论:计算 ED50 和 EDref 是比较不同血小板功能检测值的有效方法。只要血小板计数大于 30 x109/L,流式细胞仪就能进行正确的血小板功能测试,而阻抗聚集仪和体外出血时间则不一致,除非血小板计数大于 100 x109/L。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Assay validity of point-of-care platelet function tests in thrombocytopenic blood samples.

Introduction: Point-of-care (POC) platelet function tests are faster and easier to perform than in-depth assessment by flow cytometry. At low platelet counts, however, POC tests are prone to assess platelet function incorrectly. Lower limits of platelet count required to obtain valid test results were defined and a testing method to facilitate comparability between different tests was established.

Materials and methods: We assessed platelet function in whole blood samples of healthy volunteers at decreasing platelet counts (> 100, 80-100, 50-80, 30-50 and < 30 x109/L) using two POC tests: impedance aggregometry and in-vitro bleeding time. Flow cytometry served as the gold standard. The number of platelets needed to reach 50% of the maximum function (ED50) and the lower reference limit (EDref) were calculated to define limits of test validity.

Results: The minimal platelet count required for reliable test results was 100 x109/L for impedance aggregometry and in-vitro bleeding time but only 30 x109/L for flow cytometry. Comparison of ED50 and EDref showed significantly lower values for flow cytometry than either POC test (P value < 0.05) but no difference between POC tests nor between the used platelet agonists within a test method.

Conclusion: Calculating the ED50 and EDref provides an effective way to compare values from different platelet function assays. Flow cytometry enables correct platelet function testing as long as platelet count is > 30 x109/L whereas impedance aggregometry and in-vitro bleeding time are inconsistent unless platelet count is > 100 x109/L.

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
Biochemia Medica
Biochemia Medica 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
70
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biochemia Medica is the official peer-reviewed journal of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Journal provides a wide coverage of research in all aspects of clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. Following categories fit into the scope of the Journal: general clinical chemistry, haematology and haemostasis, molecular diagnostics and endocrinology. Development, validation and verification of analytical techniques and methods applicable to clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine are welcome as well as studies dealing with laboratory organization, automation and quality control. Journal publishes on a regular basis educative preanalytical case reports (Preanalytical mysteries), articles dealing with applied biostatistics (Lessons in biostatistics) and research integrity (Research integrity corner).
期刊最新文献
Quality assurance of add-on testing in plasma samples: stability limit for 29 biochemical analytes Two cases with discrepancy in the quantitative cytological assessment of cerebrospinal fluid in neonatal samples using light microscopy in comparison with Sysmex XN-1000 Common P-glycoprotein () polymorphisms do not seem to be associated with the risk of rivaroxaban-related bleeding events: Preliminary data CLSI-based verification and establishment of reference intervals for common biochemical assays in Croatian newborns Prediction interval: A powerful statistical tool for monitoring patients and analytical systems
×
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