4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Determination of heparin-platelet factor 4-IgG antibodies improves diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 113, Issue 4, Pages 886-890

Publisher

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2001.02869.x

Keywords

heparin-induced thrombocytopenia; heparin-PF4 antibodies; thrombosis; immunglobulin class; ELISA

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Only a few patients with heparin-induced antibodies develop heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). In this study, we investigated whether different immunglobulin classes can be used to differentiate between antibody-positive patients with and without HIT. Four different patient populations were investigated: 32 patients with the immune type of HIT with thromboembolic complications, 13 patients with HIT without thromboembolism, 24 patients with heparin-platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies without clinical symptoms of HIT and 20 heparin-treated patients with thrombocytopenia caused by other reasons, In all patients the immunglobulin mixture of IgG, IgM and IgA, and the single immunglobulin classes of heparin-PF4 antibodies, were investigated. No significant differences between HIT patients with thromboembolic complications and patients with isolated HIT were found concerning the different immunglobulin classes. Antibody-positive patients with KIT had significantly higher levels of IgG antibodies than those without HIT (P < 0.05), while they did not differ concerning IgM and IgA antibodies. By determining IgG antibodies, the specificity of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) system was increased without loss of sensitivity Heparin-PF4-IgG antibodies can identify patients at risk of developing life-threatening HIT. Future ELISAs should only include this immunglobulin class, as the determination of the antibody mixture may lead to overestimation of HIT.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available