Key result
Plasma quinidine concentrations determined by EMIT averaged 1.23-fold greater than results from a quinidine-specific HPLC method (2.16 vs 1.81).
Why the study?
How do plasma quinidine concentrations measured by EMIT compare to those measured by HPLC in patients with stable ventricular arrhythmias?
Population
16 patients with stable ventricular arrhythmias
Comparison
Enzyme multiplied immunoassay for measuring… vs High performance liquid chromatographic assay
Design
Other
Follow-up
9 days (three consecutive 3-day periods)
Authors
Loading...
May warrant preferring HPLC for quinidine TDM; leaves open effects on dosing in ventricular arrhythmias.
Observational (n=16)
How do plasma quinidine concentrations measured by EMIT compare to those measured by HPLC in patients with stable ventricular arrhythmias?
Effect estimate: Ratio 1.23
Absolute Event Rate: 2.16% vs 1.81%
The EMIT assay overestimates quinidine concentrations by approximately 20% compared to the more specific HPLC method, likely due to cross-reactivity with dihydroquinidine and metabolites.
Lehmann et al. (1986) conducted an observational in Stable ventricular arrhythmias (n=16). Enzyme multiplied immunoassay (EMIT) vs. High performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) assay was evaluated on Plasma quinidine concentration (Ratio 1.23). Plasma quinidine concentrations determined by EMIT averaged 1.23-fold greater than results from a quinidine-specific HPLC method (2.16 vs 1.81).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: