4.6 Article

Activated protein C resistance determined with a thrombin generation-based test is associated with thrombotic events in patients with lupus anticoagulants

期刊

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 5, 期 11, 页码 2204-2210

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02734.x

关键词

antiphospholipid syndrome; APC resistance; lupus anticoagulants; thrombin generation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Several studies suggest that antiphospholipid antibodies interfere with the activity of activated protein C (APC). This acquired form of APC resistance has been proposed as a possible pathogenic mechanism underlying hypercoagulability associated with the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Objectives: We wanted to investigate the inhibitory effect of recombinant APC (rAPC) on ex vivo thrombin generation in plasma and the modification of I this effect by the presence of lupus anticoagulants (LA). Patients/Methods: We analyzed plasmas from 81 patients with LA (52 patients fulfilling the criteria for the APS) and 91 controls. Percent inhibition of the endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) as a parameter of APC sensitivity was determined in plasmas using a thrombin generation-based APC resistance test probed with rAPC. All results were normalized using pooled normal plasma (PNP) as a reference. Results: Normalized percent inhibition of ETP by APC was lower in patients with LA [61.4% 95% confidence interval (CI) 45.8-74.5%] compared to controls (107.8%. 95% CI: 107.1-109.3%). In patients with LA and APS. median inhibition was lower than in patients with LA without APS (44.6% 95% CI: 30.1-55.7% vs. 78.8%, 95% CI: 73.9-95.8%). This difference also persisted when patients on warfarin therapy were excluded from the APS sub-Group. Conclusions: APC resistance can be demonstrated with a thrombin generation-based test in a majority of patients with the LA laboratory phenotype. A history of thrombotic events in patients with LA is associated with a stronger resistance to the anticoagulant effect of APC.

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