Key result
Multistat III Centrifugal Analyser strongly correlates with conventional aggregometry for measuring platelet aggregation.
Why the study?
Does the Multistat III Centrifugal Analyser provide reliable platelet aggregation measurements compared to conventional aggregometry?
Observational (n=65)
Does the Multistat III Centrifugal Analyser provide reliable platelet aggregation measurements compared to conventional aggregometry?
Effect estimate: r 0.85
p-value: p=<0.001
The MCA method is a valid, automated technique for measuring platelet aggregation and can effectively monitor the response to low-dose aspirin therapy.
Should not yet change platelet testing practice; leaves open prospective validation of the automated method.
A Multistat III Centrifugal Analyser (MCA) was used to measure platelet aggregation in vitro. It has a capacity of about 40 samples per h. In the analyser platelet-rich plasma and collagen-reagent were mixed, and the turbidity was measured as a function of time. The results were presented in arbitrary units ( arb . units), i.e. change in turbidity per min X 1000. The estimated 0.95 reference range was 50-95 arb . units, (n = 46) and the coefficient of correlation between MCA results and results obtained by conventional aggregometry ( Fibromat ) was 0.85 (P less than 0.001). The MCA method registered 50-75% reduction of platelet aggregation after intake of low dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) (1.2-4.0 mg/kg) during 3 days in 19 subjects. The MCA method is suitable to monitor ASA treatment routinely in order to establish an individual appropriate ASA dose during prophylactic treatment of arterial thromboembolic disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nielsen et al. (1984) reported an observational. Multistat III Centrifugal Analyser (MCA) vs. Conventional aggregometry (Fibromat) was evaluated on Correlation between MCA results and conventional aggregometry (r 0.85, p=<0.001). The Multistat III Centrifugal Analyser method for measuring platelet aggregation correlated significantly with conventional aggregometry (r=0.85, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: