DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-3933.ijam20195220

Evaluation of Rosners index vs Brandt correction and Chang’s %, in the interpretation of mixing studies at varying dilutions

Mirza Asif Baig, Mohammed Shahid Iqbal, Ayesha Tabassum

Abstract


Background: For evaluation of unexplained prolongation of PT and PTT, mixing tests forms a great diagnostic tool. On mixing equal volume of patient plasma with normal pooled plasma, if there is correction it indicates factor deficiency and non-correction indicates inhibitors.

Methods: Sysmex CS-5100 Coagulometer with Pathrombin SL APTT reagent, LA1 and LA2 reagents supplied by siemens were used. All data were expressed as Mean±SD. Statistical analysis was done using unpaired students t test. A p value of <0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance in all analyse.

Results: APTT with (1:1) and (4:1) mixing study for detection of factor deficiency showed a sensitivity of 91% and 92% for RI, 88% and 90% for Changs %, and 75% for Brandt correction PNP aPTT + 5 secs respectively. For Inhibitors, RI shows a sensitivity of 79% and 89%, Changs 71 and 80% and Brandt test 50% for APTT (1:1) and (4:1) mix, respectively.

Conclusions: Mixing tests forms an important diagnostic tool in differentiating factor deficiency from inhibitors especially in LAC patients. This study recommends mandatory use of mixing tests in LAC cases as also advocated by BSH, ISTH and CLSI. Rosners Index is more sensitive than changes % and Brandt correction in the interpretation of mixing studies. It can be safely concluded that RI can be used as a reference method for evaluation of mixing studies and its sensitivity is greatly increased by using PP4:1 PNP. It’s a matter of debate that whether these indices can be effective with other Analysers and reagents?


Keywords


Activated partial thromboplastin time, Lupus anticoagulant, Pooled normal plasma, Mixing study, Rosner’s Index, Changs % correction

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bonar RA, Lippi G, Favaloro EJ. Overview of hemostasis and thrombosis and contribution of laboratory testing to diagnosis and management of hemostasis and thrombosis disorders. Hemost Throm. 2017;1646:3-27.

Rosner E, Pauzner R, Lusky A, Modan M, Many A. Detection and quantitative evaluation of lupus circulating anticoagulant activity. Thromb Haemost. 1987 Apr;57(02):144-7.

Ledford-Kraemer M. All mixed up about mixing studies. Clotting Times. 2004;3:2-6

Brandt JT, Barna LK, Triplett DA. Laboratory identification of lupus anticoagulants: results of the Second International Workshop for Identification of Lupus Anticoagulants. Thromb Haemost. 1995 Dec;74(06):1597-603.

Chang SH, Tillema V, Scherr D. A “percent correction” formula for evaluation of mixing studies. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002 Jan 1;117(1):62-73.

Chang S, Tillema V. Mixing study procedure changes. Laboratory News Update Marshfield Laboratories. March 8,1994;17(3):1-7.

Kottke-Marchant K. Algorithmic approaches to hemostasis testing. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2014 Mar;40(2):195-204.

Kershaw GK, Orellana D. Mixing tests: diagnostic aides in the investigation of prolonged PT and APTT. SeminThrombosHemost. 2013;39:283-90.

Lim W. Antiphospholipid antibody syndrome. ASH Education Program Book. 2009 Jan 1;2009(1):233-9.

Kandice WLN, Merchants K. Lupus Anticoagulants & Antiphospholipid syndrome, Chapter 39; in Hematology Practice, first edition edited by Kandice Kottke- Merchant, Bruce H. Davis.; 2012:509-525.

Annesley TM. Predictive value theory. In: Mc Clatchey KD, ed. Clinical Laboratory Medicine. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins; 1994:92-95.

Miletich JP. Activated partial thromboplastin time. In: BeutlerE, Lichtman MA, eds. Williams Hematology.5th ed. New York, 1995:L85-L86.

Bockenstedt PL. Evaluation of a prolonged PT and APTT. In: Loscalzo J, Schafer AI, eds. Thrombosis and Hemorrhage. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins; 1998:522-523.

Triplett DA. Laboratory diagnosis of lupus anticoagulant. Semin Thromb Hemost. 1990;16:182-92.