Correlation Of Heparin Confirmatory Test (HCT) With Optical Density (OD) and Serotonin Release Assay (SRA) In The Diagnosis Of Heparin Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT)

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 4754-4754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravneet Thind ◽  
Danielle Heidemann ◽  
Sundara Raman ◽  
Philip Kuriakose

Introduction Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a potentially fatal, thrombotic complication of heparin therapy mediated by antibodies to complexes between platelet factor 4 (PF4) and heparin. Accurate and rapid diagnosis with prompt commencement of therapy are imperative as delays in treatment are associated with an increasing risk of thrombosis, amputation, or death. On the flip side, initiation of therapy with direct thrombin inhibitors without laboratory confirmation carries a significant risk of bleeding. Two types of laboratory tests are available for detection of these antibodies: a widely available immunoassay (ELISA), which is very sensitive to the presence of anti-heparin/PF4 antibodies, but is less specific to the clinical syndrome of HIT because of detection of non-pathological antibodies. The Serotonin Release Assay (SRA) is a functional assay that is now considered the gold standard for confirmatory diagnosis of HIT due to its high specificity. However, the downside of SRA is the cost involved, limited availability and a turnaround time of 5-7 days. As such, a heparin confirmatory test (HCT) with excess heparin has been in use since mid 2011 on positive ELISA samples in our laboratory to improve test specificity. This test is more cost and time efficient, with a turnover time of no more than 48 hours. As noted in prior studies, inhibition of a positive ELISA result by 50% or more in the presence of excess heparin is considered confirmatory of heparin-dependent antibodies. Likewise a negative confirmatory test is defined as a decrease of 50% or less in antibody binding in the presence of heparin. Aim a) Correlation of Heparin Confirmatory test (HCT) with strength of HIT ELISA, vis-à-vis optical density (OD) of 0.4 - 0.99 and OD of >/= 1.0. b) Correlation of HCT results with SRA, to see if the latter can be replaced by the heparin confirmatory test. Patients and Methods A retrospective chart review of adult patients hospitalized at our institution with suspected HIT from July 2011 until January 2013 was done. There were 101 such patients. All patients who had a positive HIT ELISA, then had HCT as per our standard lab practice, with an SRA test done for diagnosis/confirmation of HIT, as per standard clinical practice. Historically, the major strength of SRA assay is its specificity. The optical density on HIT ELISA and SRA results were then compared with the Heparin Confirmatory test to establish clinical significance. Results Of the 101 patients tested for HIT ELISA, 49 were positive. HCT and SRA were performed on all 49 samples, 1 out of which was reported as indeterminate. Hence 48 samples were used for primary analysis, comparing HCT to the OD as well as the SRA results. Out of 48 patients, 6 had positive SRA with Heparin inhibition of >50% (sensitivity 6/6 = 100%). Remaining 42 patients had negative SRA, 7 out of which had Heparin inhibition of <50% (specificity 7/42 = 16.6%). All 7 patients with a negative HCT had a negative SRA, making the negative predictive value of the HCT 100%; however positive predictive value was only 14.6% (6/41). There was no correlation between the OD and Heparin Confirmation test. Conclusions Although there is data suggesting that there might be some value to the Heparin Confirmation test, we were unable to show a significant correlation between HCT and OD or between HCT and SRA. The prospect of having a cost effective and rapid assay for laboratory confirmation of HIT will always be a relevant need. We feel that a larger, prospective study should be conducted to definitively assess the relationship between HCT and SRA. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

TH Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Caroline Gonthier ◽  
Nicolas Gendron ◽  
philippine Eloy ◽  
Marie-Charlotte Bourrienne ◽  
martine alhenc-gelas ◽  
...  

Laboratory confirmation of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is of crucial importance and remains challenging and relies on platelet functional assays highlighting the presence of heparin-dependent platelet-activating antibodies in patient serum or plasma. Platelet functional assays using washed platelets include the 14C-serotonin release assay (SRA), usually described as the gold standard, and the heparin-induced platelet activation assay (HIPA). Since its first comparison with SRA there has been no additional published study regarding HIPA diagnostic performances compared to SRA. Aim of our retrospective study was to compare the concordance between HIPA and SRA in HIT suspected-patients with positive anti-PF4/heparin antibodies between October 2010 and October 2015. Fifty-five HIT-suspected patients who beneficiated from both HIPA and SRA were included. Positive and negative percent agreements were 83.8% (95% CI 68.0–93.8%) and 66.7% (95% CI 41.0–86.7%), respectively. Overall percent agreement was 78.2% (95% CI 65.0–92.2%). Agreement was higher in patients who underwent cardiopulmonary bypass with extracorporeal circulation circuit for cardiac surgery. We also confirm that the use of a minimum of 2 platelet donors to establish positive HIT diagnosis and 4 platelet donors to exclude HIT diagnosis allows obtaining a good agreement with SRA. Although HIPA and SRA were performed with different platelet donors and in different laboratories, HIPA had a good positive agreement with SRA for HIT diagnosis, showing that HIPA is a useful functional assay that does not require radioactivity and could be developed worldwide to improve HIT diagnosis.


2021 ◽  
pp. 106002802110387
Author(s):  
Long To ◽  
Dana Attar ◽  
Brittany Lines ◽  
Melissa McCarty ◽  
Hassan Nemeh ◽  
...  

Background: Heparin exposure and device-related thrombocytopenia complicate the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) in patients receiving mechanical circulatory support (MCS). To improve anticoagulation management for patients with newly implanted MCS devices, incidence of confirmed HIT needs to be further characterized. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to describe the incidence of HIT and clinical utility of the 4Ts score in patients with newly implanted MCS devices. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of MCS patients receiving unfractionated heparin from 2014 to 2017. The primary end point was incidence of laboratory-confirmed HIT. Strong positive, likely positive, low probability, and negative HIT categories were established based on heparin-induced platelet antibody (HIPA) and serotonin release assay (SRA). Secondary end points include characterization of platelet trends, argatroban use, incidence of HIT among each of the MCS devices, and utility of 4Ts score. Results: A total of 342 patient encounters met inclusion criteria, of which 68 HIPA tests and 25 SRAs were ordered. The incidence of HIT was 0.88% (3/342) and 4.4% (3/68) in patients with suspected HIT. Of the 68 HIPA tests, 3 (4.4%) were considered strong positive and 3 of the 25 SRAs were positive. Median 4Ts score was 4 [2.5-4] and optical density 0.19 [0.11-0.54]. The positive predictive value for the 4Ts score was 0.15 (CI = 0.03-0.46) and negative predictive value, 0.93 (CI = 0.82-0.98). Conclusion and Relevance: HIT occurs infrequently with newly implanted MCS devices. The 4Ts score appears to have a high negative predictive value for ruling out HIT.


2000 ◽  
Vol 124 (11) ◽  
pp. 1657-1666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Fabris ◽  
Sarfraz Ahmad ◽  
Giuseppe Cella ◽  
Walter P. Jeske ◽  
Jeanine M. Walenga ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective.—This review of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), the most frequent and dangerous side effect of heparin exposure, covers the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of this disease syndrome. Data Sources and Study Selection.—Current consensus of opinion is given based on literature reports, as well as new information where available. A comprehensive analysis of the reasons for discrepancies in incidence numbers is given. The currently known mechanism is that HIT is mediated by an antibody to the complex of heparin–platelet factor 4, which binds to the Fc receptor on platelets. New evidence suggests a functional heterogeneity in the anti-heparin-platelet factor 4 antibodies generated to heparin, and a “superactive” heparin-platelet factor 4 antibody that does not require the presence of heparin to promote platelet activation or aggregation has been identified. Up-regulation of cell adhesion molecules and inflammatory markers, as well as preactivation of platelets/endothelial cells/leukocytes, are also considered to be related to the pathophysiology of HIT. Issues related to the specificity of currently available and new laboratory assays that support a clinical diagnosis are addressed in relation to the serotonin-release assay. Past experience with various anticoagulant treatments is reviewed with a focus on the recent successes of thrombin inhibitors and platelet GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors to combat the platelet activation and severe thrombotic episodes associated with HIT. Conclusions.—The pathophysiology of HIT is multifactorial. However, the primary factor in the mediation of the cellular activation is due to the generation of an antibody to the heparin-platelet factor 4 complex. This review is written as a reference for HIT research.


2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 410-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suresh G. Shelat ◽  
Anne Tomaski ◽  
Eleanor S. Pollak

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) can lead to life-threatening and limb-threatening thrombosis. HIT is thought to be initiated by the interaction of pathogenic antibodies toward a complex platelet factor 4 (PF4) and heparin (PF4:H), which can activate platelets and predispose to thrombosis. As such, the laboratory diagnosis of HIT includes antigenic and functional assays to detect antibodies directed at PF4:H complexes. We performed a retrospective analysis of 1017 consecutive samples tested by serotonin-release assay and by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Most samples showed no serologic evidence of HIT, whereas 4% to 5% of samples demonstrated both antigenic and functional serological evidence for HIT. Approximately 12% to 18% of samples showed immunologic evidence of anti-PF4:H antibodies but without functional evidence of serotonin release in vitro. Interestingly, a small minority of samples (0.7%) caused serotonin release but were negative in the ELISA. The results are presented using cutoff values established at our hospital and for the ELISA manufacturer. This study provides a pretest probability of the serologic results from an antigenic assay (ELISA) and a functional assay (serotonin-release assay) in patients clinically suspected of having HIT.


2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 282-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brianne M. Ritchie ◽  
Jean M. Connors ◽  
Katelyn W. Sylvester

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated optimized diagnostic accuracy in utilizing higher antiheparin–platelet factor 4 (PF4) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) optical density (OD) thresholds for diagnosing heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). We describe the incidence of positive serotonin release assay (SRA) results, as well as performance characteristics, for antiheparin–PF4 ELISA thresholds ≥0.4, ≥0.8, and ≥1.0 OD units in the diagnosis of HIT at our institution. Methods: Following institutional review board approval, we conducted a single-center retrospective chart review on adult inpatients with a differential diagnosis of HIT evaluated by both antiheparin–PF4 ELISA and SRA from 2012 to 2014. The major endpoints were to assess incidence of positive SRA results, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy at antiheparin–PF4 ELISA values ≥0.4 OD units when compared to values ≥0.8 and ≥1.0 OD units. Clinical characteristics, including demographics, laboratory values, clinical and safety outcomes, length of stay, and mortality, were collected. Results: A total of 140 patients with 140 antiheparin–PF4 ELISA and SRA values were evaluated, of which 23 patients were SRA positive (16.4%) and 117 patients were SRA negative (83.6%). We identified a sensitivity of 91.3% versus 82.6% and 73.9%, specificity of 61.5% versus 87.2% and 91.5%, PPV of 31.8% versus 55.9% and 63.0%, NPV of 97.3% versus 96.2% and 94.7%, and accuracy of 66.4% versus 86.4% and 88.6% at antiheparin–PF4 ELISA thresholds ≥0.4, ≥0.8, and ≥1.0 OD units, respectively. Conclusion: Our study suggests an increased antiheparin–PF4 ELISA threshold of 0.8 or 1.0 OD units enhances specificity, PPV, and accuracy while maintaining NPV with decreased sensitivity.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3742-3742
Author(s):  
Eve-Anne Guéry ◽  
Caroline Vayne ◽  
Cloé Derray ◽  
Joévin Besombes ◽  
Wayne Corentin Lambert ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Serotonin Release Assay (SRA) is today considered as the "gold standard" to detect pathogenic Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT) antibodies. However, this method is time-consuming, expensive and necessitates the use of 14C-radio-labelled serotonin, this implicating a specific agreement and secured premises, with a non-negligible environmental impact. These limitations explain that the use of SRA is restricted to a few laboratories worldwide. Finding a more accessible method with similar performances is therefore a challenge, and other different functional assays, such as Heparin-Induced Multiple Electrode Aggregometry (HIMEA), Light Transmission Aggregometry (LTA) using platelet rich plasma (PRP) or washed platelet (WP), ATP release, and Flow Cytometry (FC), are available. However, the sensitivity of these assays has never been comparatively evaluated with a standardized reagent. Objectives: The objective of our study was therefore to evaluate the sensitivity of these 5 functional methods for the detection of HIT antibodies in comparison with SRA, using 5B9, a monoclonal chimeric anti-PF4/H IgG recently developed in our laboratory, which fully mimics the effects of human HIT antibodies (Kizlik-Masson et al, J Thromb Haemost, 2017). Material and Methods: Platelet activation induced by 5B9 with heparin was assessed by the 6 following methods with blood samples from 10 consecutive unselected healthy donors:HIMEA performed with whole blood (Multiplate Analyzer® Roche),LTA performed with PRP (Chronolog®, Chrono-Log corporation),FC based on the assessment of P-selectin expression and performed with PRP (HIT Confirm®, Emosis on AccuriC6 plus®, Becton Dickinson),ATP release performed with WP (Chronolog®, Chrono-Log corporation),LTA performed with WP (Chronolog®, Chrono-Log corporation),SRA performed with WP (LSC scintillation counter, Perkin Elmer). For each method, different concentrations of 5B9 (10-20-50 µg/mL) were tested without heparin, and with "therapeutic" or high concentrations of unfractionated heparin (ranging from 0.1 to 1 and from 10 to 200 IU/mL respectively, according to the functional assay performed). The 3 concentrations of 5B9 were previously defined as "low" (10 µg/mL inducing in most cases a serotonin release <50% and no platelet aggregation in PRP), "high" (50 µg/mL always inducing a serotonin release >50% and platelet aggregation in PRP) or "intermediate" (20 µg/mL yielding variable results). Results: With the highest concentration of 5B9 (50 µg/mL), a strong platelet activation was detected with all methods and donors tested. HIMEA exhibited similar sensitivity (Ss 100%) than SRA to detect the activation induced by 20 μg/mL 5B9. FC was also able to detect the effect induced by 20 μg/mL 5B9 with 9/10 donors tested (90%). Alternatively, the measurement of ATP release, and LTA performed with WP or PRP failed to detect the effect of 20 μg/mL 5B9 in 30, 30 and 40 % of donors tested, respectively. SRA was the only method able to detect platelet activation induced by 10 μg/mL 5B9 with all donors tested, and the other methods were less sensitive (table). LTA performed with PRP was always negative (Ss= 0%). Platelet washings increased LTA sensitivity for detecting 10 or 20 μg/mL 5B9 (40% and 70% with WP vs. 0 and 60% with PRP, respectively), and the measurement of ATP release exhibited similar sensitivity. When platelet activation was evaluated in whole blood by HIMEA or in PRP using FC, the sensitivity to detect HIT antibodies was also improved (60% and 50%, respectively). Conclusion: These results confirm that SRA is likely the more sensitive functional assay to detect low concentrations of HIT antibodies. Indeed, apart from SRA, none of the other methods was able to detect the lowest concentration of 5B9 with 100% of donors. Interestingly, FC or HIMEA, which are rapid assays, also exhibit a high sensitivity, close to 100%, for detecting "intermediate" concentrations of HIT antibodies (i.e. corresponding to 20 μg/mL 5B9). We will further study the performances of these functional tests, including their specificity, by assessing patient's samples with confirmed HIT or having developed non-pathogenic antibodies (study in progress). Figure. Figure. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4689-4689
Author(s):  
Sriman Swarup ◽  
Somedeb Ball ◽  
Nimesh Adhikari ◽  
Anita Sultan ◽  
Khatrina Swarup ◽  
...  

Introduction: Heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a severe prothrombotic condition, usually triggered by exposure to heparin products. It is characterized by platelet activation induced by the formation of antibodies to the platelet factor 4 (PF4)/ heparin polyanion complexes. Diagnostic algorithm includes clinical scoring (4T score) alongside serological test for detection of these antibodies (HIT-Ab), while serotonin release assay (SRA) remains the gold- standard for confirmation. The automated latex immunoturbidometric assay (LIA) has recently been FDA approved as a screening tool for HIT and is a potential alternative to the conventional particle immunofiltration assay (PIFA) for time-sensitive detection of HIT-Ab to guide treatment considerations. We recently introduced LIA in our institution. In this study, we present our experience with LIA in comparison to PIFA in the diagnosis of HIT. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of all the patients on whom a PIFA was ordered between March 2017 and March 2018 in our hospital. We collected information on the results of the PIFA and SRA (if available). We replaced PIFA with LIA for HIT screening. Then, we introduced a structured protocol for diagnosis of HIT in our institution by incorporating 4T scoring alongside LIA order in the electronic medical record (EMR), in December 2018. We reviewed the EMR of all the patients on whom HIT-Ab test (LIA) was ordered between January and June of 2019, and collected similar information as before. All the data were compiled in a single master excel sheet for calculation of performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values) for both PIFA and LIA. A patient was considered to have the diagnosis of HIT if the result of SRA was available and positive. Results: In the first phase, a total of 31 orders for SRA was noted against 170 PIFA orders. Five patients had a positive SRA, of whom two were PIFA negative. Half the patients with a negative SRA result were positive for PIFA. Hence, the sensitivity and specificity of PIFA test for our study population were noted to be 60% and 50%, respectively. PIFA had a positive predictive value (PPV) of mere 18.75% for the diagnosis of HIT, whereas the negative predictive value (NPV) was found to be 86.66%. Introduction of structured protocol for HIT diagnosis substantially reduced the number of inappropriate SRA orders in the second phase. On review of data for six months with the new HIT-Ab test LIA, SRA was ordered in only eight patients, to go with 69 orders for the LIA. The result of LIA was positive in all three patients with a positive SRA, whereas it was false positive in four instances. Only one patient was negative for both LIA and SRA during this period. LIA was found to be 100% sensitive and 20% specific for the diagnosis of HIT in our sample. PPV and NPV for LIA were 42.85% and 100%, respectively. Conclusion: The sensitivity and specificity of LIA were found to be 100% and 20%, respectively, in our study population, which is different from the earlier report (Warkentin et al. 2017). The small sample size is a limitation of our study. Higher PPV and NPV for LIA, with its quick turnaround time, make it a useful alternative for the time-sensitive determination of post-test probability for HIT in patients. [HIT- Ab- Heparin Induced Thrombocytopenia Antibody, PIFA- Particle Immunofiltration Assay, LIA- Latex Immunoturbidometric Assay, SRA- Serotonin Release Assay, +ve- Positive, -ve - Negative, PPV- Positive Predictive Value, NPV- Negative Predictive Value] Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3566-3566
Author(s):  
Heather R Wolfe ◽  
Yu-Min Shen

Abstract Background: Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT) is one of the most important and commonly encountered immune-mediated drug reactions which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. In up to 25% of patients, thrombosis can be the presenting finding of HIT. Isolated HIT occurs in patients without clinically evident thrombosis at the time of diagnosis. The management of HIT focuses on reducing the risk of thrombotic complications. In addition to prompt discontinuation of heparin products, anticoagulation is recommended. The risk of thrombosis is thought to remain high for up to 4 weeks due to persistent circulating PF4-heparin antibodies. Prior studies have shown that in patients with isolated HIT, the subsequent 30-day risk of thrombosis is up to 53%. Guidelines recommend 3 months of anticoagulation for patients with HIT-associated thrombosis. The optimal duration of anticoagulation in isolated HIT is unknown. Many experts recommend prophylactic anticoagulation for up to 4 weeks after diagnosis. However in the era of direct thrombin inhibitors, the need for prophylactic anticoagulation and risk of thrombosis beyond normalization of platelet count remains to be determined. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of subsequent thrombosis in patients with isolated HIT. Methods: In this retrospective review, we identified patients with a documented positive HIT (heparin-PF4 antibody) enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) at our affiliated hospitals between January 2006 and December 2016. Laboratory data from these patients were reviewed. Patients who met criteria for HIT, defined as HIT ELISA optical density ≥ 2 or positive serotonin release assay were included in the analysis. From this cohort of patients with confirmed HIT, clinical data was extracted from the electronic medical record, including anticoagulation management and documented thrombotic events within 3 months of HIT diagnosis. Patients with evidence of thrombosis at the time of diagnosis were excluded in the final analysis as our focus was on patients with isolated HIT. The incidence of subsequent thrombosis was compared in patients who received anticoagulation versus those who did not receive anticoagulation. Results: A total of 403 charts were reviewed from patients with a documented positive HIT ELISA, defined as an optical density of > 0.4. Of the 403 patients, 49.5% (n = 107) met criteria for HIT, with an optical density > 2 or positive serotonin release assay. In patients with HIT, 48.6% (n = 52) did not have evidence of thrombosis at the time of diagnosis. Of these patients with isolated HIT, 14 patients (26.9%) received no prophylactic anticoagulation, 8 patients (15.4%) received prophylactic anticoagulation for at least 4 weeks but less than 3 months, and 30 patients (57.7%) were anticoagulated for 3 months or longer. The total incidence of subsequent thrombosis in isolated HIT was 7.7%. In the cohort of patients that did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation, two patients (14.3%) developed a thrombotic event in the 3 months following the HIT diagnosis. No documented thrombotic complications occurred in the eight patients that received prophylactic anticoagulation for at least 4 weeks but less than 3 months. Three patients (10%) who received long-term anticoagulation (≥3 months) developed a subsequent thrombotic event. There was no significant difference in the incidence of subsequent thrombosis in patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation versus patients who received short-term prophylactic anticoagulation (p=0.141). In addition, there was no significant difference in the incidence of subsequent thrombosis in patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation versus those who received long-term anticoagulation (p=0.701). Conclusions: The optimal duration of anticoagulation in patients with isolated HIT is unknown. Our incidence of thrombosis following the diagnosis of HIT was lower than previously described. Patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation did not have a significantly higher incidence of thrombosis compared to patients who received short-term prophylactic or long-term anticoagulation. The study was limited by the retrospective nature and small sample size. Further studies are needed to better understand the ideal length of anticoagulation to prevent thrombotic complications without leading to unnecessary increased risk of bleeding. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Biomedicines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 332
Author(s):  
Brigitte Tardy-Poncet ◽  
Aurélie Montmartin ◽  
Michele Piot ◽  
Martine Alhenc-Gelas ◽  
Philippe Nguyen ◽  
...  

Reliable laboratory diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) remains a major clinical concern. Immunoassays are highly sensitive, while confirmatory functional tests (based on heparin-dependent platelet activation) lack standardization. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of a functional flow cytometric assay (FCA) based on the detection of heparin-dependent platelet activation with an anti-p-selectin. A total of 288 patients were included (131 HIT-positive and 157 HIT-negative) with a HIT diagnosis established by expert opinion adjudication (EOA) considering clinical data and local laboratory results. The FCA was centrally performed in a single laboratory on platelet-rich plasma, using a very simple four-color fluorometer. The results were standardized according to the Heparin Platelet Activation (HEPLA) index. The serotonin release assay (SRA) was performed in the four French reference laboratories. Based on the final HIT diagnosis established by EOA, the sensitivity and specificity of the FCA were 88 and 95%, respectively, values very similar to those of the SRA (88 and 97%, respectively). This study showed that the FCA, based on easily implementable technology, may be routinely used as a reliable confirmatory test for HIT diagnosis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document