Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Ther Drug Monit ; 21(1): 123-8, 1999 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-10051065

ABSTRACT

The analytic performance of two automated nonpretreatment digoxin methods, AxSYM Digoxin II and Vitros digoxin immunoassays, was assessed. Both assays had analytic sensitivities of less than 0.2 microg/L, were linear from digoxin concentrations of 0.5 to 4.0 microg/L, and showed acceptable precision, with a maximum total coefficient of variation (CV) of 8.9% and 6.4% for the AxSYM and Vitros, respectively. Comparison of the two methods using samples from patients receiving digoxin gave the following relationship: Vitros = 0.91 x AxSYM + 0.23 (r = 0.97, Sy,x = 0.12). Digoxinlike immunoreactive factor (DLIF) crossreactivity was examined in specimens from patients who had hepatic disease, renal insufficiency, had undergone cardiac surgery, and in neonatal cord blood samples. Minimal crossreactivity was observed for most samples and the average crossreactivity for each group of samples was comparable for the two methods. The recovery of digoxin added to samples from each group of DLIF was similar, except for that from cord blood samples, for which recovery was significantly lower with the AxSYM method. Titration of a digoxin-spiked serum pool with digoxin-immune Fab showed a similar decrease in the measured digoxin concentration for both methods. Overall, the analytic performance characteristics of these two methods were comparable.


Subject(s)
Anti-Arrhythmia Agents/blood , Digoxin/blood , Anti-Arrhythmia Agents/analysis , Anti-Arrhythmia Agents/immunology , Cross Reactions , Digoxin/analysis , Digoxin/immunology , Drug Monitoring/methods , Evaluation Studies as Topic , Humans , Immunoassay/methods , Immunoglobulin Fab Fragments/immunology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL