Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Qualité et interprétation des examens du bilan biologique de thrombophilie constitutionnelle Cas particulier des principaux inhibiteurs: antithrombine, protéine C et protéine S

Quality and interpretation of biological screening for hereditary thrombophilia Focus on the main inhibitors: antithrombin, protein C and protein S.

  • Dossier
  • Published:
BioTribune Magazine

Résumé

Le bilan biologique de thrombophilie doit être réalisé avec l’assurance de la qualité des analyses effectuées et de l’interprétation des résultats. L’assurance de la qualité doit pouvoir être apportée en suivant certaines recommandations communes à toute la biologie ou des recommandations plus particulières à l’hémostase ou au bilan de thrombophilie et enfin même à des analyses spécifiques. Ces recommandations spécifiques seront précisées dans cette revue pour les diagnostics des déficits en antithrombine, protéine C et protéine S.

Abstract

Biological screening for hereditary thrombophilia must be performed with constant concern for quality of the results and the interpretation. Different guidelines are available common to most laboratory tests, common to hemostasis tests, thrombophilia screening or specific for each test. These different steps are discussed in this paper with a special focus on the diagnosis of antithrombin, protein C and protein S deficiencies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

/+/ Références

  1. de Moerlosse P, Bounameaux HR, Mannucci PM (1998). Screening test for thrombophilic patients: which tests, for which patient, by whom, when, and why? Semin Tromb Hemost 24: 321–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Tripodi A, Mannucci PM (2001). Laboratory investigation of thrombophilia. Clin Chem 47: 1597–606

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Martinelli I (2003). Pros and cons of thrombophilia testing: pros. J Thromb Haemost 1: 410–1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Machin SJ (2003). Pros and cons of thrombophilia testing: cons. J Thromb Haemost 1: 412–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sié P (2006). Bilan biologique de la thrombose veineuse: quelles conditions et quel coût? STV 18: 523–8

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mackie I, Cooper P, Kitchen S (2007). Quality assurance issues and interpretation of assays. Semin Hematol 44: 114–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Recommandations 2007 du Groupe d’Études sur l’Hémostase et la Thrombose pour les prélèvements destinés aux tests d’hémostase. http://www.geht.org/fr/

  8. Olson JD (2002). College of American Pathologists Consensus Conference XXXVI: Diagnostic Issues in Thrombophilia. Arch Pathol Lab Med 126: 1277–80

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jennings I, Kitchen S, Woods TA (2005). Multilaboratory testing in thrombophilia through the United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Scheme (Blood Coagulation) Quality Assurance Program. Semin Thromb Hemost 31: 66–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Favaloro EJ, Bonar R, Sioufi J, et al.;RCPA QAP in Haematology (2005). Multilaboratory testing of thrombophilia: current and past practice in Australasia as assessed through the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Program for Hematology. Semin Thromb Hemost 31: 49–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Meijer P, Haverkate F, Kluft C (2006). Performance goals for the laboratory testing of antithrombin, protein C and protein S. Thromb Haemost 96: 584–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Harper PL, Luddington RJ, Daly M (1991). The incidence of dysfunctional antithrombin variants: four cases in 210 patients with thromboembolic disease. Br J Haematol 77: 360–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bayston TA, Lane DA (1997). Antithrombin: molecular basis of deficiency. Thromb Haemost 78: 339–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mammen EF (1995). Clinical relevance of antithrombin deficiencies. Semin Hematol 32: 2–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosendaal FR (1999). Risk factors for venous thrombotic disease. Thromb Haemost 82: 610–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Finazzi G, Caccia R, Barbui T (1987). Different prevalence of thromboembolism in the subtypes of congenital antithrombin III deficiency: review of 404 cases. Thromb Haemost 58: 1094

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kottke-Marchant K, Duncan A (2002). Antithrombin deficiency: issues in laboratory diagnosis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 126: 1326–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Tran TH, Duckert F (1985). Influence of heparin cofactor II (HCII) on the determination of antithrombin III (AT). Thromb Res 40: 571–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Conard J, Bara L, Horellou MH, et al. (1986). Bovine or human thrombin in amidolytic at III assays. Influence of heparin cofactor II. Thromb Res 41: 873–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Demers C, Henderson P, Blajchman MA, et al. (1993). An antithrombin III assay based on factor Xa inhibition provides a more reliable test to identify congenital antithrombin III deficiency than an assay based on thrombin inhibition. Thromb Haemost 69: 231–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tait RC, Walker ID, Islam SI, et al. (1993). Influence of demographic factors on antithrombin III activity in a healthy population. Br J Haematol 84: 476–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Dahlback B, Villoutreix BO (2005). Regulation of blood coagulation by the protein C anticoagulant pathway: novel insights into structure-function relationships and molecular recognition. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 25: 1311–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Reitsma PH, Bernardi F, Doig RG, et al. (1995). Protein C deficiency: a database of mutations, 1995 update. On behalf of the Subcommittee on Plasma Coagulation Inhibitors of the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the ISTH. Thromb Haemost 73: 876–89

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tait RC, Walker ID, Islam SI, et al. (1993). Protein C activity in healthy volunteers—influence of age, sex, smoking and oral contraceptives. Thromb Haemost 70: 281–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kottke-Marchant K, Comp P (2002). Laboratory issues in diagnosing abnormalities of protein C, thrombomodulin, and endothelial cell protein C receptor. Arch Pathol Lab Med 126: 1337–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Pabinger I, Allaart CF, Hermans J, et al. (1992). Hereditary protein C-deficiency: laboratory values in transmitters and guidelines for the diagnostic procedure. Report on a study of the SSC Subcommittee on Protein C and Protein S. Protein C Transmitter Study Group. Thromb Haemost 68: 470–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. D’Angelo SV, Gilardoni F, D’Angelo A (1989). Evaluation of coagulometric assays in the assessment of protein C anticoagulant activity; variable sensitivity of commercial APTT reagents to the cofactor effect of protein S. Thromb Haemost 62: 861–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. de Moerloose P, Reber G, Bouvier CA (1988). Spuriously low levels of protein C with a Protac activation clotting assay. Throm Haemost 59: 543

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jennings I, Kitchen S, Cooper PC, et al. (2000). Further evidence that activated protein C resistance affects protein C coagulant activity assays. Thromb Haemost 88: 171–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Girault C, Gufflet V, Robert A (1991). The effect of lupus anticoagulant (LA) on clotting assay for plasma protein C (PC). Thromb Haemost 66: 389

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. College of American Pathologists (1995). Coagulation Survey. Participant summary (set CG2A). Northfield IL

  32. Meijer P, Kluft C, Haverkate F, et al. (2003). The long-term within- and between-laboratory variability for assay of antithrombin, and proteins C and S: results derived from the external quality assessment program for thrombophilia screening of the ECAT Foundation. J Thromb Haemost 1: 748–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Beauchamp NJ, Dykes AC, Parikh N, et al. (2004). The prevalence of, and molecular defects underlying, inherited protein S deficiency in the general population. Br J Haematol 125: 647–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Makris M, Leach M, Beauchamp NJ, et al. (2000). Genetic analysis, phenotypic diagnosis, and risk of venous thrombosis in families with inherited deficiencies of protein S. Blood: 1934–41

  35. Goodwin AJ, Rosendaal FR, Kottke-Marchant K, et al. (2002). A review of the technical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic considerations for protein S assays. Arch Pathol Lab Med 126: 1349–66

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Johnston AM, Aboud M, Morel-Kopp MC, et al. (2007). Use of a functional assay to diagnose protein S deficiency; inappropriate testing yields equivocal results. Intern Med J 37: 409–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Faioni EM (2001). Reliable estimates of plasma protein S levels: are we getting any closer? Thromb Haemost 8: 1139–40

    Google Scholar 

  38. Van Cott EM, Ledford-Kraemer M, Meijer P;NASCOLA Proficiency Testing Committee (2005). Protein S assays: an analysis of North American Specialized Coagulation Laboratory Association proficiency testing. Am J Clin Pathol 123: 778–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unité d’hémostase, hôpital Saint-Antoine, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 184, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Antoine, 75571, Paris cedex 12, France

    A. Robert & V. Eschwège

Authors
  1. A. Robert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. V. Eschwège
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Robert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Robert, A., Eschwège, V. Qualité et interprétation des examens du bilan biologique de thrombophilie constitutionnelle Cas particulier des principaux inhibiteurs: antithrombine, protéine C et protéine S. Bio trib. mag. 24, 12–18 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03010322

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03010322

Mots clés

Keywords

Search

Navigation