4.1 Article

Stability of stored canine plasma for hemostasis testing

期刊

VETERINARY CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 204-207

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-165X.2006.tb00115.x

关键词

coagulation factor analysis; coagulation test; dog; hemostasis; sample stability; sample storage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A review of the literature revealed limited information about the stability of samples for coagulation testing in dogs. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the stability of individual coagulation factors, clotting times, and other parameters of hemostasis; in stored canine plasma. Methods: Citrated plasma samples were obtained from 21 dogs. Prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), fibrinogen concentration, and factor I, II, V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII activities were measured on an automated coagulation analyzer with commercially available reagents. Antithrombin (AT) activity and D-dimer concentration were measured on an automated chemistry analyzer using validated kits. Samples were analyzed within 1 hour after collection (initial analysis) and once daily for 2 or 4 consecutive days following storage at room temperature (RT) or 4 degrees C, respectively. Results: Storage time at either temperature did not have any effect on PT, factor 11, V, VII, X, or XII activities, D-dimer concentration, or AT activity. In contrast, aPTT was significantly prolonged after 72 and 96 hours at 4 degrees C; fibrinogen concentration was decreased after 48 hours at RT; the activities of factors VIII and IX were decreased after 48, 72, and 96 hours at 4 degrees C; and factor XI activity was decreased after 72 hours at 4 degrees C. Conclusions: Results suggest that storage of canine plasma for 2 days at RT does not have a significant effect on hemostasis test results with the exception of a slight decrease in fibrinogen concentration. In contrast, aPTT and factors VIII, IX, and XI were unstable in refrigerated plasma after 48 or 72 hours of storage.

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

4.1
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