Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation · 2020
Performance comparison of platelet function analyzers in cardiology patients: VerifyNow and Anysis-200 aspirin assays.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chung Young Hak, Lee Kyung Ah, Cho Minhee, Shin Sehyun, Lee Byoung Kwon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Analysis of responsiveness to antiplatelet therapy is crucial in the management of patients with cardiovascular diseases.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate a new platelet function analysis system (Anysis-200) and to compare it with VerifyNow (Accumetrics, San Diego, CA, USA) in cardiology patients.
METHODS: Overall, 125 citrated blood samples were collected from 85 cardiology patients referred for platelet function testing. In Anysis-200, platelet function was measured as blood migration distance (MD) until clogging of flow passage, which is comparable to aspirin resistance units obtained using VerifyNow. The two devices were simultaneously used and compared.
RESULTS: The MDs before and after taking aspirin were 175±51 and 247±27 mm, respectively (p < 0.0001). Compared with VerifyNow (reference), the sensitivity and specificity of Anysis-200 was 91.5% and 75.5%, respectively (area under the curve, 0.829). Further, the true positive rate in patients newly taking aspirin was 85% for VerifyNow and 92.5% for Anysis-200, respectively. The Cohen's kappa coefficient between the two devices was 0.682, indicating a relatively high agreement.
CONCLUSIONS: Anysis-200, a novel system for assessing platelet aggregation, has accuracy and precision equivalent to that of, and significant agreement with, VerifyNow. Anysis-200 may be useful in screening patients with abnormal platelet reactivity and aspirin nonresponsiveness.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate a new platelet function analysis system (Anysis-200) and to compare it with VerifyNow (Accumetrics, San Diego, CA, USA) in cardiology patients.
METHODS: Overall, 125 citrated blood samples were collected from 85 cardiology patients referred for platelet function testing. In Anysis-200, platelet function was measured as blood migration distance (MD) until clogging of flow passage, which is comparable to aspirin resistance units obtained using VerifyNow. The two devices were simultaneously used and compared.
RESULTS: The MDs before and after taking aspirin were 175±51 and 247±27 mm, respectively (p < 0.0001). Compared with VerifyNow (reference), the sensitivity and specificity of Anysis-200 was 91.5% and 75.5%, respectively (area under the curve, 0.829). Further, the true positive rate in patients newly taking aspirin was 85% for VerifyNow and 92.5% for Anysis-200, respectively. The Cohen's kappa coefficient between the two devices was 0.682, indicating a relatively high agreement.
CONCLUSIONS: Anysis-200, a novel system for assessing platelet aggregation, has accuracy and precision equivalent to that of, and significant agreement with, VerifyNow. Anysis-200 may be useful in screening patients with abnormal platelet reactivity and aspirin nonresponsiveness.