Thrombosis research · 2014
Comparison of Von Willebrand factor (VWF) activity VWF:Ac with VWF ristocetin cofactor activity VWF:RCo.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Geisen Ulrich, Zieger Barbara, Nakamura Lea, Weis Andreas, Heinz Jürgen, Michiels Jan Jacques, Heilmann Claudia
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Ristocetin cofactor activity of Von Willebrand factor (VWF:RCo) and the ratio VWF:RCo to its antigen VWF:Ag are used as routine screening to estimate VWF function and to detect types of Von Willebrand disease (VWD) caused by loss of high molecular weight multimers. However, the VWF:RCo test is prone to analytic imprecisions due to various reasons. We compared an assay for VWF activity (VWF:Ac) with VWF:RCo putting emphasis on the ratios to VWF:Ag.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 942 samples from 432 patients and evaluated three groups in detail: normal patients (normal multimers, VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo >0.5 U/ml, VWD type 1 excluded; n=258), VWD type 1 (n=76) and acquired Von Willebrand syndrome (AVWS, n=326). In addition, 30 healthy subjects were analysed.
RESULTS: VWF:Ac and VWF:RCo correlated well (Pearson´s r=0.96, p<0.01), so did their ratios to VWF:Ag (Pearson´s r=0.82, p<0.01). We calculated the normal range of VWF:Ac/VWF:Ag for healthy subjects as 0.8-1.16. In comparison, the reference range (mean±2std) derived from normal patient samples was 0.73-1.14. The corresponding ranges for VWF:RCo/VWF:Ag came to 0.74-1.23 (healthy) and 0.62-1.25 (normal patients). The ratios showed similar results regarding VWD type 1. The sensitivity for AVWS was higher with VWF:Ac/VWF:Ag than with VWF:RCo/VWF:Ag (97.5% versus 84.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that the results obtained with the VWF:Ac assay are comparable to that of the VWF:RCo assay. An AVWS was more reliably detected by VWF:Ac/VWF:Ag. We assume that the VWF:Ac assay could replace VWF:RCo for routine screening for AVWS, especially when prompt evaluation is required.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 942 samples from 432 patients and evaluated three groups in detail: normal patients (normal multimers, VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo >0.5 U/ml, VWD type 1 excluded; n=258), VWD type 1 (n=76) and acquired Von Willebrand syndrome (AVWS, n=326). In addition, 30 healthy subjects were analysed.
RESULTS: VWF:Ac and VWF:RCo correlated well (Pearson´s r=0.96, p<0.01), so did their ratios to VWF:Ag (Pearson´s r=0.82, p<0.01). We calculated the normal range of VWF:Ac/VWF:Ag for healthy subjects as 0.8-1.16. In comparison, the reference range (mean±2std) derived from normal patient samples was 0.73-1.14. The corresponding ranges for VWF:RCo/VWF:Ag came to 0.74-1.23 (healthy) and 0.62-1.25 (normal patients). The ratios showed similar results regarding VWD type 1. The sensitivity for AVWS was higher with VWF:Ac/VWF:Ag than with VWF:RCo/VWF:Ag (97.5% versus 84.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that the results obtained with the VWF:Ac assay are comparable to that of the VWF:RCo assay. An AVWS was more reliably detected by VWF:Ac/VWF:Ag. We assume that the VWF:Ac assay could replace VWF:RCo for routine screening for AVWS, especially when prompt evaluation is required.