4.6 Article

Serotonin-release assay-positive but platelet factor 4-dependent enzyme-immunoassay negative: HIT or not HIT?

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 96, 期 3, 页码 320-329

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.26075

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [201603PJT, 363046]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IgG-specific and polyspecific PF4-dependent enzyme-immunoassays have high sensitivity for HIT diagnosis, but SRA+/EIA- HIT cases are exceptionally rare clinically. False-negative IgG-specific EIA results can lead to misdiagnosis, emphasizing the need for further clinical investigation and testing.
IgG-specific and polyspecific PF4-dependent enzyme-immunoassays (EIAs) have exceptionally high sensitivity (>= 99%) for diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), a drug reaction caused by platelet-activating antibodies detectable by serotonin-release assay (SRA). The IgG-specific EIAs are recommended for screening, as their high sensitivity is accompanied by relatively high specificity vis-a-vis polyspecific EIAs. We investigated the frequency of SRA-positive/EIA-negative (SRA+/EIA-) HIT, prompted by referral to our reference HIT laboratory of serial blood samples from a patient (index case) with false-negative IgG-specific EIAs. Despite initial clinical suspicion for HIT, repeat negative IgG-specific EIAs prompted heparin resumption, which triggered recurrent thrombocytopenia and near-fatal cardiac arrest, indicating likely post-heparin HIT-associated anaphylactoid reaction. Further investigations revealed a strong-positive SRA, whether performed with heparin alone, PF4 alone, or PF4/heparin, with inhibition by Fc receptor-blocking monoclonal antibody (indicating IgG-mediated platelet activation); however, five different IgG-specific immunoassays yielded primarily negative (or weak-positive) results. To investigate the frequency of SRA+/EIA- HIT, we reviewed the laboratory and clinical features of patients with this serological profile during a 6-year period in which our reference laboratory investigated for HIT using both SRA and IgG-specific EIA. Although similar to 0.2% of 8546 patients had an SRA+/EIA- profile, further review of 15 such cases indicated clerical/laboratory misclassification or false-positive SRA in all, with no SRA+/EIA- HIT case identified. We conclude that while SRA+/EIA- HIT is possible-as shown by our index case-this clinical picture is exceptionally uncommon. Moreover, the requirement for a positive EIA is a useful quality control maneuver that reduces risk of reporting a false-positive SRA result.

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

4.6
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