4.4 Article

Usefulness of Flow Cytometric Mepacrine Uptake/Release Combined with CD63 Assay in Diagnosis of Patients with Suspected Platelet Dense Granule Disorder

Journal

SEMINARS IN THROMBOSIS AND HEMOSTASIS
Volume 42, Issue 3, Pages 282-291

Publisher

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1564836

Keywords

dense granule disorder; mepacrine; CD63; granulophysin; flow cytometry

Funding

  1. China Scholarship Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dense granule disorder is one of the most common platelet abnormalities, resulting from dense granule deficiency or secretion defect. This study was aimed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of the flow cytometric combination of mepacrine uptake/release assay and CD63 expression detection in the management of patients with suspected dense granule disorder. Over a period of 5 years, patients with abnormal platelet aggregation and/or reduced adenosine triphosphate (ATP) secretion suggestive of dense granule disorder were consecutively enrolled. The flow cytometric assays were systematically performed to further investigate dense granule functionality. Among the 26 included patients, 18 cases showed impaired mepacrine uptake/release and reduced CD63 expression on activated platelets, consistent with delta-storage pool deficiency (SPD). Another seven patients showed decrease in mepacrine release and CD63 expression but mepacrine uptake was normal, indicating secretion defect rather than delta-SPD. Unfortunately, ATP secretion could not be measured in 7 out of the 26 patients due to insufficient sample and/or severe thrombocytopenia. This test combination provides a rapid and effective method to detect the heterogeneous abnormalities of platelet dense granule by distinguishing between storage and release defects. This combination is particularly advantageous for severely thrombocytopenic patients and pediatric patients in which only minimal sample is required.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available