阿司匹林抵抗两评价方法分析  

Analysis of two evaluation methods for aspirin resistance

作　　者：饶绘[1] 皮佑珺[1] 王蓉[1] 润袁敏[1] 钟万芬[1] 李智山[1] 

机构地区：[1]襄阳市中心医院检验科,湖北襄阳441021

出　　处：《现代预防医学》2013年第20期3810-3812,共3页Modern Preventive Medicine

基　　金：襄阳市科技指导性计划(200812)

摘　　要：目的观察光学法和代谢产物法评价阿司匹林抵抗(AR)的相关性和一致性。方法住院患者56例,规律服用阿司匹林7 d(100 mg/d)后,以酶联免疫吸附法(ELISA)测定尿11-脱氢-血栓烷(U-11-DH-TXB2),以光学法(LTA)检测花生四烯酸(AA)诱导的血小板聚集功能,对两法评价AR进行方法学比较和分析。结果 U-11-DHTXB2与LTA-AA结果不相关(r=-0.061,P﹥0.05)且一致性较差(Kappa=0.097);以LTA-AA判断AR为标准,U-11-DH-TXB2评价AR的敏感性和特异性分别为21.4%和81.8%。结论血小板聚集功能和U-11-DH-TXB2用于评价阿司匹林抵抗的结果一致性差,两者不能相互取代而推荐结合使用。OBJECTIVE The aim of the study was to determine the correlation and consistency between optical method and metabolite method for the evaluation of aspirin resistance （AR）. METHODS 56 hospitalized patients were regularly treated with aspirin for 7 days（ 100 mg/d）. Urinary 11-dehydrothromboxane （U-11-DH-TXB2） levels in the patients were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay （ELISA）, and arachidonic acid （AA）-induced platelet aggregation was determined by optical method （LTA）. The two AR evaluation methodologies were compared and analyzed. RESULTS Results obtained by U-11-DH-TXB2 and by LTA-AA were not correlated （r = -0.061, P 〉 0.05） and were poor in consistency （Kappa = 0.097）. If using LTA-AA as a reference standard for AR evaluation, sensitivity and specificity of U-11-DH-TXB2 in the evaluation of AR were 21.4% and 81.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION Consistency between platelet aggregation and urinary 11-DH-TXB2 in the evaluation of aspirin resistance is poor, and thus adopting the two methods in conjunetionof each other is recommended.

关 键 词：阿司匹林 尿11-脱氢-血栓烷B2 血小板聚集功能 

分 类 号：R973[医药卫生—药品]