MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W83130955 · doi:10.1182/blood.v122.21.3535.3535

Combination Of 4T’s Score and Rapid Gel Centrifugation Assay Excludes HIT In a Prospective Cohort Study

2013· article· en· W83130955 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Lori Ann Linkins, Shannon M. Bates, Agnes Lee, Theodore E. Warkentin

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHeparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineImmunoassayProspective cohort studyHeparin-induced thrombocytopeniaHeparinPlatelet factor 4AntibodyInternal medicinePlateletGastroenterologySurgeryImmunology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract The diagnosis of heparin-Induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is based on the presence of a compatible clinical picture combined with laboratory evidence of heparin-dependent, platelet-activating IgG antibodies. The 4T's Score is a clinical prediction rule that determines the likelihood that a patient has HIT before laboratory testing is performed. A rapid assay (H/PF4-PaGIA, Diamed, Switzerland) uses gel centrifugation to measure binding of antibodies to antigen-coated polystyrene beads (15 min turnover time). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical utility of a diagnostic strategy which combines the 4T's Score with a H/PF4-PaGIA result to guide management of patients with suspected HIT while awaiting results of the serotonin-release assay (SRA). Methods Prospective cohort study of 538 consecutive adult patients with suspected HIT at 4 Canadian hospitals. Physicians completed a standardized 4T's Score sheet and the H/PF4-PaGIA was performed using fresh plasma in a central lab by technologists blinded to the 4T's Score (frozen plasma was used for 85 patients due to disruptions in worldwide availability of the assay.) The SRA and an in-house IgG anti-PF4/H enzyme-immunoassay (EIA) were performed on all patients by blinded technologists. Serologically-confirmed HIT (“HIT positive”) was defined as >50% serotonin release (mean) at three reaction conditions (0.1 U/mL heparin; 0.3 U/mL heparin; enoxaparin, 0.1 U/ml), as well as inhibition (<20% release or >50% inhibition) at 100 U/mL heparin and in the presence of Fc receptor-blocking monoclonal antibody, and a positive EIA. Thrombotic events, major bleeding events, and mortality were captured at day 30. Recommendations for management of patients while awaiting the SRA: patients with a Low 4T's Score (irrespective of H/PF4-PaGIA result) and patients with an Intermediate 4T's Score and negative H/PF4-PaGIA were to receive low-dose danaparoid or fondaparinux. Therapeutic-dose non-heparin anticoagulation was recommended for all patients with an Intermediate 4T's Score and positive H/PF4-PaGIA and for all patients with a High 4T's Score irrespective of H/PF4-PaGIA result. The primary outcome measure was the frequency of management failures defined as a patient with serologically-confirmed HIT who had one of the following combinations of diagnostic testing (a) Low 4T's Score and negative H/PF4-PaGIA; (b) Low 4T's Score and positive H/PF4-PaGIA or (c) Intermediate 4T's Score and negative H/PF4-PaGIA. Results 527 patients with mean age 66.5 yr (sd 15.4) were analyzed; 11 patients with missing diagnostic testing results were excluded. Clinical outcomes of the management of patients according to the diagnostic strategy will be reported separately. Results of diagnostic accuracy of the 4T's Score and H/PF4-PaGIA compared to the SRA are provided below. The prevalence of serologically-confirmed HIT in the study population was 6.5%. Two patients with indeterminate SRAs but IgG>1.0 were reported as HIT Positive. A negative H/PF4-PaGIA result reduced the probability of HIT based on the 4T's Score from 2.5% to 0.7% (95% CI: 0.1-2.6%) in the Low group, from 6.1% to 0% (95% CI: 0-2.7%) in the Intermediate group and from 35.7% to 0% (95% CI: 0-14.3%) in the High group. A positive H/PF4-PaGIA result increased the probability of HIT based on the 4T's Score to 15.4% (Low 4T's), 38.5% (intermediate 4T's) and 83.3% (High 4T's). The proportion of management failures was 1.5% (95% CI : 0.7%-3.0%). Of the 8 patients who were identified as management failures, 2 (Low 4T's) had a negative H/PF4-PaGIA. Out of 33 HIT Positive patients, 8 (24.2%) would have been missed based on a Low 4T's Score alone and 2 (6.1%) based on negative H/PF4-PaGIA alone. The combination of a Low or Intermediate 4T's Score and a negative H/PF4-PaGIA result had a negative predictive value for HIT of 99.5% (95% CI: 98.3-99.9). Conclusions The proportion of management failures was low (1.5%) and within acceptable limits (95% CI : 0.7%-3.0%). Combining the 4T's Score with the result of H/PF4-PaGIA excludes the diagnosis of HIT in the majority of patients with a Low or Intermediate probability for HIT and raises the likelihood of HIT in patients with a High probability. Disclosures: Linkins: BioRad DiaMed: PaGIA assays purchased at cost for study Other. Bates:BioRad Diamed: provided assays for study at cost Other. Lee:BioRad Diamed: provided assays for study at cost Other. Warkentin:GSK: Research Funding; WL Gore: Consultancy; Immucor GTI Diagnostics: Research Funding; Paringenix: Consultancy; Pfizer Canada: Honoraria; BioRad Diamed: provided assays for study at cost, provided assays for study at cost Other.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,029
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,058

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,263
Écart entre enseignants0,243 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetHeparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia and ThrombosisTravaux en français237 207