4.7 Article

Ordering of the Serum Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Test in Patients Receiving Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Therapy An Avoidable but Common Error

期刊

CHEST
卷 148, 期 6, 页码 1447-1453

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1378/chest.15-1061

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Serum angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) levels may be decreased by use of ACE inhibitor (ACEI) medication. In this study, we determined how oft en ACE levels were measured in patients receiving ACEI therapy. METHODS: ACE levels analyzed over a 54-month preintervention time period at an academic medical center were reviewed retrospectively for tests performed during ACEI therapy. These data were compared with a large, deidentified dataset of ACE levels measured at a national reference laboratory; in vitro studies of ACEI inhibition; and liquid chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry detection of lisinopril in a subset of clinical specimens. RESULTS: Over a 54-month period, 1,292 patients had ACE levels measured, with 108 patients (8.4%) receiving ACEI therapy at the time of testing. ACE levels measured for patients receiving ACEI therapy were substantially lower. In general, clinical teams did not recognize a medication effect on ACE levels. Introduction of a warning prompt in the electronic health record reduced the ordering of ACE levels in patients receiving ACEIs by > 60% in a 17-month post-intervention time period. The deidentified dataset of ACE levels at a reference laboratory showed a bimodal distribution, with a peak of very low ACE levels. Using liquid chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry, the presence of lisinopril was confirmed in a subset of specimens with low ACE activity. In vitro studies of two different ACE assays showed significant inhibition of activity at clinically relevant concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of ACE activity is oft en measured for patients receiving ACEIs, potentially leading to low ACE concentrations and inaccurate interpretations.

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

4.7
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