胸水胆固醇和尿酸在鉴别渗出液和漏出液中的价值

目的探讨胸水胆固醇(Pch)浓度、胸水与血清胆固醇(Sch)浓度的比值(P/Sch)、胸水尿酸(Pua)浓度对胸腔积液渗漏性的鉴别诊断价值.方法对85例胸腔积液患者检测Pch和65例患者检测Pua,并计算出P/Sch,分别研究Pch、P/Sch、Pua、胸水总蛋白(Ptpr)对胸水渗漏性诊断的受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)、灵敏度、特异性与诊断效率.结果 Pch、P/Sch、Pua、Ptpr对胸水渗出液诊断的灵敏度分别为96.2%、90.4%、79.5%和90.6%,特异性分别为100.0%、89.7%、61.9%和80.6%.Pch鉴别渗出液和尿酸鉴别漏出液的ROC曲线下面积分别是0.986和0.655.结论 Pch、P/Sch、Ptpr对胸水渗出液具有较高的鉴别诊断价值,ROC亦证明Pch鉴别渗出液和Pua监测漏出液是可行的,Pch的诊断效率最高(P＜0.05).Pua对胸水监测漏出液有一定价值,尿酸增加表示机体抗氧化状态佳,提示预后较好.     

胸水胆固醇和尿酸在鉴别渗出液和漏出液中的价值

目的　探讨胸水胆固醇(Pch)浓度、胸水与血清胆固醇(Sch)浓度的比值(P/Sch)、胸水尿酸(Pua)浓 度对胸腔积液渗漏性的鉴别诊断价值。方法　对85例胸腔积液患者检测Pch和65例患者检测Pua,并计算出 P/Sch,分别研究Pch、P/Sch、Pua、胸水总蛋白(Ptpr)对胸水渗漏性诊断的受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)、灵敏度、 特异性与诊断效率。结果　Pch、P/Sch、Pua、Ptpr对胸水渗出液诊断的灵敏度分别为96.2%、90.4%、79.5%和 90.6%,特异性分别为100.0%、89.7%、61.9%和80.6%。Pch鉴别渗出液和尿酸鉴别漏出液的ROC曲线下面 积分别是0.986和0.655。结论　Pch、P/Sch、Ptpr对胸水渗出液具有较高的鉴别诊断价值,ROC亦证明Pch鉴 别渗出液和Pua监测漏出液是可行的,Pch的诊断效率最高(P<0.05)。Pua对胸水监测漏出液有一定价值,尿 酸增加表示机体抗氧化状态佳,提示预后较好。     

胸水腺苷脱氨酶在渗出液与漏出液鉴别中的应用

腺苷脱氨酶（adenosine deaminase,ADA）是嘌呤代谢酶,催化腺苷转化为次黄嘌呤核苷及脱氧腺苷转化为脱氧次黄苷。ADA存在于多种细胞,特别是淋巴细胞中。ADA测定有助于结核性胸水的诊断,但假阳性也多有报道,如淋巴瘤、结缔组织疾病、类肺炎胸腔集液、脓胸等。这些胸水均为渗出液,有高水平的ADA。因此,我们设想测定胸水ADA鉴别渗出液与漏出液。笔者将胸水ADA测定与其他指标如白蛋白梯度、总蛋白梯度测定进行比较,评估了胸水ADA鉴别渗出液与漏出液的有效性。     

胸腹水脂质鉴别漏出液和渗出液的价值

目的 探讨从检测胸腹水脂质角度鉴别漏出液和渗出液的价值.方法 收集疾病已明确诊断患者的浆膜腔积液样本42例,其中漏出液18例、渗出液24例,对这些漏出液和渗出液的脂质进行检测.结果 漏出液与渗出液的TCH、HDL-C、LDL-C、ApoA I、ApoB、LP(a)的含量存在显著性差异.若以漏出液的脂质含量±2SD为分界线得TCH 1.41mmol/L、HDL-C 0.32 mmol/L、LDL-C 1.16mmol/L、ApoA I 42 mg/L、ApoB 25mg/L和LP(a)140mg/L则区别漏出液和渗出液42例中不符合的例数分别为漏出液有1例的ApoAI＞42 mg/L(测定值为56/L)、有1例LP(a)＞140mg/L(测定值为182mg/L),渗出液全部符合.结论 检测胸腹水脂质含量可有效作为区分漏出液、渗出液.     

血清-胸液蛋白梯度和血清-胸液白蛋白梯度在鉴别胸腔积液渗漏出液中的作用

胸腔积液是临床医生经常面对的临床综合征,准确地区分胸腔积液的性质对于提供正确的诊断和治疗非常关键.Light标准迄今为止被认为是区分胸腔积液为漏出液或渗出液的金标准,但尚存在许多的不足之处.本次研究通过对136例胸腔积液的检测,发现血清-胸液白蛋白梯度在鉴别胸腔积液中更具优势.现报道如下.     

C反应蛋白检测在判断胸腹水积液性质中的价值

目的了解黏蛋白、比密（SG）检测与C-反应蛋白（CRP）在判断胸腹水渗出液／漏出液中的关系及诊断价值。方法134例胸腹腔积液采用黏蛋白定性（即Rivalta试验）、SG与免疫比浊法测定积液及血清中CRP水平，进行比对。结果用常规方法测定黏蛋白、SG，并以此判断出134例胸腹腔积液中渗出液为73例，漏出液为19例，不确定组为42例；积液及血清CRP定量测定渗出液组明显高于漏出液组（P均〈0．01）。其敏感度、特异度及准确度均高于常规方法。结论积液和血清CRP检测有助于临床鉴别渗出液和漏出液，但用经典的Rivalta试验、SG测定再同时检测积液或血清CRP并进行综合判断积液的性质将对疾病的诊断、治疗和预后有更雷女的音口     

胸腔积液和腹水清蛋白检测假性增高1例

正胸腔积液和腹水总蛋白测定是鉴别渗出液和漏出液的重要指标之一~([1]),一般认为胸腔积液和腹水总蛋白高于25g/L为渗出液,低于25g/L则为漏出液~([2])。清蛋白在胸腔积液和腹水中的检测主要用于提示血清-清蛋白梯度,能够比较真实地反映门静脉压力,有利于提高胸腔积液和腹水性质鉴别的准确性~([3-4])。基于溴甲酚绿的比色法检测清蛋白水平操作简单,特异性强,目前在国内常用于清蛋白的水平检     

实验室检查在胸腔渗出液与漏出液鉴别诊断中的作用

胸腔积液是由于局部或全身病变破坏了胸腔内液体滤过与吸收的动态平衡,导致胸腔内液体形成过快或吸收过缓所产生的一种临床常见病征,分为渗出液与漏出液两种性质。胸腔积液的性质对病因的辅助诊断具有一定的临床价值。本文对形态学和生物化学检查在渗出液与漏出液鉴别诊断中的现状作归纳与总结。     

C-反应蛋白检测在鉴别胸腹水性质中的临床价值

目的 了解胸腹腔积液C-反应蛋白(CRP)检测与乳酸脱氢酶(LDH)、总蛋白在判断胸腹水渗出液/漏出液中的关系.方法 110例胸腹腔积液测定其总蛋白、总蛋白/血清总蛋白、LDH、LDH/血清LDH与免疫比浊法测定积液中CRP水平,进行比对评价.结果 根据Light标准判断出110例胸腹腔积液中渗出液为71例,漏出液为39例;积液中CRP定量测定渗出液组明显高于漏出液组(P＜0.01).其具有较高敏感度,特异度及准确度.结论 胸腹腔积液CRP定量测定有助于临床鉴别渗出液与漏出液的性质,与Light判断标准同时检测积液中的CRP并进行综合判断,将对疾病的诊断、治疗和预后有更大的临床意义.     

C反应蛋白检测在判断胸腹水积液性质中的价值

目的了解黏蛋白、比密(SG)检测与C-反应蛋白(CRP)在判断胸腹水渗出液/漏出液中的关系及诊断价值。方法134例胸腹腔积液采用黏蛋白定性(即R ivalta试验)、SG与免疫比浊法测定积液及血清中CRP水平,进行比对。结果用常规方法测定黏蛋白、SG,并以此判断出134例胸腹腔积液中渗出液为73例,漏出液为19例,不确定组为42例;积液及血清CRP定量测定渗出液组明显高于漏出液组(P均<0.01)。其敏感度、特异度及准确度均高于常规方法。结论积液和血清CRP检测有助于临床鉴别渗出液和漏出液,但用经典的R i-valta试验、SG测定再同时检测积液或血清CRP并进行综合判断积液的性质将对疾病的诊断、治疗和预后有更重大的意义。     

Pleural adenosine deaminase in the separation of transudative and exudative pleural effusions

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of a new parameter, pleural adenosine deaminase (PADA), for separating transudative pleural effusion from exudative pleural effusion, and to compare the results with other tests (albumin gradient and protein gradient). METHODS: From November 2001 to January 2003, 359 consecutive patients with pleural effusion who underwent a diagnostic thoracentesis were included in the study. Effusions were individually classified as transudates or exudates after the careful evaluation of all clinical data and biochemical parameters of pleural fluid and serum of patients on the basis of Light's criteria. The means and standard deviations of PADA, pleural/serum ADA (P/S ADA) ratio, albumin gradient and protein gradient were evaluated for transudative and exudative effusions. The best cut-off values for each test were identified by using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The optimum cut-off level was determined by selecting points of test values that provided the greatest sum of sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: There were 113 transudates and 246 exudates. For each test, differences in mean value between the transudate group and the exudate group were statistically significant (t test, P<0.001). The optimum cut-off levels for PADA and P/S ADA were 15.3 U/L and 0.66 U/L, respectively. ROC analysis confirmed previous recommendations for albumin gradient (12 g/L) and protein gradient (31 g/L). For detecting exudates, the PADA test yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 85.8% and 82.3%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of the albumin gradient were found to be 88.5% and 79.3%, and of the protein gradient 85% and 83.2%, respectively. The areas under the curve (AUC) data and accuracy demonstrated similar discriminative properties in the examined tests. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement of PADA is suggested as a reliable test in the separation of pleural exudates from transudates with accuracy similar to that of the albumin gradient and protein gradient.     

血清腹水白蛋白梯度在腹水临床诊断中的价值

目的比较血清腹水白蛋白梯度与渗出液／漏出液对腹水鉴别诊断的准确性。方法选择诊断明确腹水病例53例,将其分为门脉高压组（A组,n=30）及非门脉高压组（B组,n=23）。比较传统的渗漏出液的分类方法及以血清腹水白蛋白梯度方法对腹水病因诊断的准确率。结果血清腹水白蛋白梯度的诊断准确性为94．34％,敏感性96．67％,特异性为91．31％,高于传统的渗漏出液指标的准确率。结论将腹水依据血清腹水白蛋白梯度判定为门脉高压相关性及非门脉高压相关性,在临床上将具有更强的实用性及更广泛的应用价值。     

Differentiation of exudate from transudate ascites based on the dipstick values of protein,glucose, and pH

The aim of present study was to determine the reliability of the dipstick values (protein, glucose, and pH) for differentiation of exudate from transudate ascites in comparison with the serum-ascites albumin gradient as criterion standard. A total of 100 patients with ascites (58 males and 42 females; mean age, 55.6 ± 16.1 years) were studied for the different causes of ascites. Peripheral blood samples were obtained, and at the same time, the patients underwent paracentesis. There were 62 cases (62.0%) of transudate ascites and 38 (38.0%) of exudates ascites, based on serum-ascites albumin gradient. Using logistic regression, we found a dipstick equation (K = 0.012Protein − 0.012Glucose − 3.329pH + 23.498) to differentiate transudate (K < 0) from exudate (K > 0) ascites. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of dipstick equation to diagnose ascites as transudate and exudate were 93.8%, 94.4%, 96.8%, and 89.5%, respectively, and 94.4%, 93.9%, 89.5%, and 96.9%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.915 (95% confidence interval, 0.848-0.982; P < .001). We concluded that the dipstick can be an inexpensive, rapid, and simple option for categorizing ascites into transudate and exudate and can be used routinely for this purpose in clinical practice.     

Diagnostic approach to pleural effusion in adults

The first step in the evaluation of patients with pleural effusion is to determine whether the effusion is a transudate or an exudate. An exudative effusion is diagnosed if the patient meets Light's criteria. The serum to pleural fluid protein or albumin gradients may help better categorize the occasional transudate misidentified as an exudate by these criteria. If the patient has a transudative effusion, therapy should be directed toward the underlying heart failure or cirrhosis. If the patient has an exudative effusion, attempts should be made to define the etiology. Pneumonia, cancer, tuberculosis, and pulmonary embolism account for most exudative effusions. Many pleural fluid tests are useful in the differential diagnosis of exudative effusions. Other tests helpful for diagnosis include helical computed tomography and thoracoscopy.     

铁蛋白检测在判断胸腹水积液性质中的应用

目的 了解黏蛋白、比密(SG)检测与铁蛋白(PFt)在判断胸腹水渗出液/漏出液中的关系及诊断价值.方法 98例胸腹腔积液采用黏蛋白定性(即Rivalta试验)、SG与微粒子酶免分析法测定积液铁蛋白(PFt)水平,进行比对.结果 用常规方法测定黏蛋白、SG,并以此判断出98例胸腹腔积液中渗出液为55例,漏出液为15例,不确定组为28例;积液铁蛋白(PFt)定量测定出渗出液组明显高于漏出液组(P＜0.01).其敏感度、特异度及准确度均高于常规方法.结论 积液铁蛋白(PFt)检测有助于临床鉴别渗出液和漏出液,结合经典的Rivalta试验、SG测定同时检测积液铁蛋白(PFt)并进行综合判断积液的性质将对疾病的诊断、治疗和预后有重要作用.     

血清-腹水白蛋白梯度在鉴别门脉高压性与非门脉高压性腹水中的临床意义

目的探讨血清-腹水白蛋白梯度(SAAG)在腹水鉴别中的临床应用价值。方法选择诊断明确的腹水患者55例,门脉高压41例、非门脉高压14例,测定血清和腹水总蛋白、白蛋白、乳酸脱氢酶、并进行对比。结果门脉高压组SAAG为(17.86±4.66)g/L,非门脉高压组SAAG为(11.05±6.74)g/L,两组比较有显著性差异(P<0.001)。对门脉高压诊断的准确率SAAG为94.55%,腹水总蛋白为61.82%、腹水血清总蛋白比值83.64%,腹水乳酸脱氢酶为67.27%。此外,SAAG大于11 g/L的病人食管静脉曲张的发生率高。结论SAAG对鉴别门脉高压性与非门脉高压性腹水具有重要的临床意义。     

Diagnostic value of uric acid to differentiate transudates and exudates.

Uric acid is known to be an end product of purine metabolism. Increases in uric acid may be found in clinical conditions associated with tissue hypoxia. We have investigated the value of uric acid to differentiate between a transudate and exudate. In this study, we measured uric acid in the pleural fluid and the serum of 110 patients, 30 women and 80 men with a mean age of 49.5+/-19 years. Light's criteria were used to differentiate between a transudate and exudate. Mean serum uric acid was 496.7+/-153.4 micromol/l in patients with transudates and 291.3+/-143.1 micromol/l in patients with exudates. Mean pleural fluid uric acid was 487.7+/-165 micromol/l in patients with transudates and 279.9+/-142.1 micromol/l in patients with exudates. These data showed that the levels of serum and pleural uric acid were higher in transudates than exudates (p<0.01). However, there was no significant difference between pleural fluid/serum uric acid ratio of the two patient groups (p>0.05). The specificity and sensitivity of pleural uric acid for diagnosis of transudate effusions were 73% and 80.6%, respectively. The specificity and sensitivity of pleural uric acid for diagnosis of transudate effusions from exudates without malignancy were 71.8% and 91.7%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of pleural lactate dehydrogenase for diagnosis of exudates were 82% and 89%; the sensitivity and specificity of pleural fluid/serum lactate dehydrogenase were 85% and 89%; the sensitivity and specificity of pleural fluid/serum protein were 91% and 89%, respectively. Using all three of Light's criteria together, the sensitivity was 91% and its specificity was 94%. Our findings indicate that determination of uric acid in pleural fluid may be of diagnostic value in differential diagnosis of transudates and exudates. The sensitivity of pleural uric acid measurement was higher for exudates without malignancy. However, Light's criteria remain the best means of separating transudates from exudates.     

胸、腹水中测定G-CSF的意义

目的观察胸、腹水中G—CH的水平及意义。方法应用中国医学科学院生产的粒细胞集落刺激因子（G—CSF）酶联免疫检测试剂盒对140例胸、腹水标本中G－CSF水平进行检测。结果漏出液组60例，G－CSF阳性检出度为3．3％，渗出液组80例，G－CH阳性检出率为77．5％，经x2检验具有显著性差异，且渗出液阳性标本WBC＞2．0X109／L，以中性粒细胞为主，提示感染性胸、腹水，渗出液18例阴性标本中，WBC计数在0．5—1.2X109／L之间，分类以淋巴细胞为主，提示非感染性渗出液。结论检测胸、腹水中的G－CSF可以鉴别渗出液和漏出液，且可作为诊断感染性渗出浓的重要依据。     

探讨渗出性胸腔积液ADA、CEA对良恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值

目的 探究渗出性胸腔积液腺苷脱氨酶(ADA)、癌胚抗原(CEA)对良恶性胸腔积液的诊断价值.方法 选择2017年1月至2020年8月本院收治的106例渗出性胸腔积液患者,将患者分为恶性组(n=36)和良性组(n=70).对两组患者胸水ADA、胸水CEA、血清CEA水平进行比较,采用单因素、多因素Logistic回归分析...