Elevated first trimester soluble fibrin polymer is associated with adverse pregnancy outcome in thrombophilic patients.
Elevated first trimester soluble fibrin polymer is associated with adverse pregnancy outcome in thrombophilic patients.
复制标题
妊娠早期可溶性纤维蛋白聚合物升高与血栓形成倾向患者的不良妊娠结局相关。
DOI：
10.1097/mbc.0b013e32830ebb5c
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Arkel,YaleS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Paidas,MichaelJ;Ku,De-HuiW;Urban,Gabriele;Hossain,Nazli;Rebarber,Andrei;Lockwood,CharlesJ;Arkel,YaleS
We read with some interest the recent paper by McGlasson and Fritsma [1], who evaluated the ability of four commercial assays [ie whole-blood aggregometry with arachidonic acid and collagen, platelet function analyzer (PFA-100) using the collagen/epinephrine cartridge, VerifyNow using the arachidonic acid cartridge and urinary 11-dehydro-thromboxane B2] to detect aspirin responsiveness in healthy individuals. They found some variation in the sensitivity between the assays and concluded that ‘laboratory test platforms do not closely reflect each other’. Another ‘similar’study [2] has recently been published and can now be added to the list of comparative studies in normal individuals. This second study also essentially assessed the ‘same’four assay procedures, except that light transmission aggregometry using platelet-rich plasma was performed instead of whole-blood aggregometry. There were also other study differences, but more importantly, in terms of comparative findings between various studies, this latter study indicated that there was a better agreement between studies utilizing normal individuals but poorer agreement between in-vitro test results when evaluating patients at risk for arterial disease [2].We believe that the search for any single assay method to assess aspirin sensitivity in people with arterial disease is akin to a search for the Holy Grail. The different tests evaluated in these studies are all ‘sensitive’for aspirin (although variably so), but assay systems also show variable ‘specificity’, with some assay systems also displaying a significant sensitivity to other in-vivo parameters, which may variably confound in-vitro test results in aspirintreated patients. In addition, there are several plausible reasons why aspirin ‘nonresponsiveness’ may arise, both in vivo and as identified from in-vitro testing, and although some tests may be sensitive to some of these, no test, we believe, would be sensitive to all. Other than the obvious issue of ‘noncompliance’in patient treatment, potential confounding in-vivo variables include the absorption and metabolism of aspirin and the relative
