4.2 Article

Do immature platelet levels in chest pain patients presenting to the emergency department aid in the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome?

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ijlh.12250

关键词

Acute coronary syndrome; emergency medicine; immature platelet fraction; myocardial infarction; platelets

资金

  1. NIH [5T32HL007574-31]
  2. Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM), Des Plaines, IL
  3. Sysmex Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IntroductionEarly and accurate identification of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) vs. noncardiac chest pain in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) is problematic and new diagnostic markers are needed. Previous studies reported that elevated mean platelet volume (MPV) is associated with ACS and predictive of cardiovascular risk. MPV is closely related to the immature platelet fraction (IPF), and recent studies have suggested that IPF may be a more sensitive marker of ACS than MPV. The objective of the present study was to determine whether the measurement of IPF assists in the diagnosis of ACS in patients presenting to the ED with chest pain. MethodsIn this single-center, prospective, cross-sectional study, adult patients presenting to the ED with chest pain and/or suspected ACS were considered for enrollment. Blood samples from 236 ACS-negative and 44 ACS-positive patients were analyzed in a Sysmex XE-2100 for platelet count, MPV, IPF, and the absolute count of immature platelets (IPC). ResultsTotal platelet counts, MPV, IPF, and IPC were not statistically different between ACS-negative and ACS-positive patients. The IPF was 4.62.7% and 5.0 +/- 2.8% (mean +/- SD, P=0.24), and the IPC was 10.0 +/- 4.6 and 11.5 +/- 7.5x10(3)/L (P=0.27) for ACS-negative and ACS-positive patients, respectively. ConclusionIn 280 patients presenting to the ED with chest pain and/or suspected ACS, no differences in IPF, IPC or MPV were observed in ACS-negative vs. ACS-positive patients, suggesting that these parameters do not assist in the diagnosis of ACS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据