ABSTRACT
Objective: To investigate the detection ability of two reagents by automated coagulation analyzer ACL-TOP using immune turbidimetric method, and to determine the merits and demerits of them. Methods:Two reagents were compared in the study. We selected 532 cases of hospitalized patients in Anzhen Hospital, 388 cases of which were unstable angina, 60 cases were pulmonary thromboembolism, 70 cases were coronary atherosclerosis, 14 cases were abdominal aneurysm, and the rest were the patients with high blood pressure and coronary heart disease. The plasmas of all the patients were extracted, and D-dimer was detected on ACL-TOP by D-Dimer (referred to as reagent A) and D-DHS (referred to as reagent B). Results:The results of D-dimer increased in different degrees, and there are 88 cases of false positive cases. The case whose FDP and individual D-dimer of D-dimer simultaneous detection was elevating and clinical symptoms were disappeared was detected by the VIDAS instrument platform verification. There were significant differences between A and B. The detection result of reagent A was [1594.15±2286.18], and reagent B was [912.97±1814.06]. There were significant differences between them (t=3.654, P<0.05). In addition, the consistency of the two reagents was poor (r=0.419, P<0.05). Conclusion:Comparing two reagents to detect D-dimer quantitatively by automated coagulation analyzer ACL-TOP, D-DHS owns greater ability to exclude false-positive results, so does the ability of anti-interference with jaundice, hemolysis and chylemia.
ABSTRACT
Objective In this study,maximum platelet aggregation rate of Light transmittance aggregometry (LTA) for coronary heart disease(CHD) patients taking antiplatelet drug and patients without antiplatelet therapy was measured in non-adjusted and platelet count-adjusted platelet-rich plasma (PRP).The aim of this study is to compare which method is superior in evaluation of antiplatelet drug effect.Methods This is a methodology comparative research.560 CHD outpatients and inpatients that visited Beijing Anzhen Hospital of the Capital University of Medical Sciences from May to June,2012 were chosen,who were treated with aspirin monotherapy,or patients on combination therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel,as well as patients without antiplatelet therapy.LTA was performed in non-adjusted (improved method) and platelet count (200 × 109/L)-adjusted PRP (original method),using 6 μmol/L adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and 0.5 mmol/L arachidonic acid (ARA) as agonists.The maximum aggregation rates in 5 min were detected,and consistency and differences of the two methods were compared.Results There is no statistically significant correlation between maximum aggregation rate and platelet count in PRP with 6 μmol/L ADP or 0.5 mmol/L ARA as agonists in all subgroups including aspirin monotherapy,combination therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel and patients without antiplatelet therapy (-0.21 ≤ r ≤0.111,P ＞ 0.05).The maximum aggregation rate using ADP as agonists in original method is decreased compared with improved method,there is statistically significant difference in all subgroups including patients without antiplatelet therapy,aspirin monotherapy,combination therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel less than one week and more than one week.The variability of platelet aggregation rate using ADP as agonists with improved method is lower than that with original method in all subgroups.Yet the maximum aggregation rates using ADP as agonists with improved method and original method correlate well with each other in all subgroups (r =0.78,0.73,0.40,0.71,P ＜0.01).In the subgroup of subjects without antiplatelet therapy using ARA as agonist,platelet aggregation rate is decreased in original method compared with improved method,there is statistically significant difference,and the variability of the aggregation rate with improved method is also lower than that with original method,ranging from 62％-98％ relative to 5％-89％.The decrease of aggregation rate using ARA as agonist for patients taking antiplatelet drug compared with patients without antiplatelet therapy can be detected both with improved method and original method.Conclusion Non-adjusted PRP in LTA is more convenient and time-saving,and it also means less effects on platelet in vitro.Therefore,non-adjusted PRP is more suitable for monitoring efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in clinical laboratory.