Quantification of platelet function - a comparative study of venous and arterial blood using a novel flow cytometry...

Studies of platelet function in surgical patients often involve both arterial and venous sampling. Possible effects of different sampling sites could be important, but have not been thoroughly investigated. We aimed to compare platelet function in arterial and venous blood samples using a novel flow cytometry protocol and impedance aggregometry. Arterial and venous blood was collected before anesthesia in 10 patients undergoing cardiac surgery of which nine was treated with acetylsalicylic acid until the day before surgery. Flow cytometry included simultaneous analysis of phosphatidylserine exposure, active conformation of the fibrinogen receptor (PAC-1 binding), α-granule and lysosomal release (P-selectin and LAMP-1 exposure) and mitochondrial membrane integrity. Platelets were activated with ADP or peptides activating thrombin receptors (PAR1-AP/PAR4-AP) or collagen receptor GPVI (CRP-XL). Leukocyte-platelet conjugates and P-selectin exposure were evaluated immediately in fixated samples. For impedance aggregometry (Multiplate®), ADP, arachidonic acid, collagen and PAR1-AP (TRAP) were used as activators. Using impedance aggregometry and in 27 out of 37 parameters studied with flow cytometry there was no significant difference between venous and arterial blood sampling. Arterial blood showed more PAC-1 positive platelets when activated with PAR1-AP or PAR4-AP and venous blood showed more monocyte-platelet and neutrophil-platelet conjugates and higher phosphatidylserine exposure with CRP-XL alone and combined with PAR1-AP or PAR4-AP. We found no differences using impedance aggregometry. In conclusion, testing of platelet function by flow cytometry and impedance aggregometry gave comparable results for most of the studied parameters in venous and arterial samples. Flow cytometry identified differences in PAC-1 binding when activated with PAR1-AP, exposure of phosphatidyl serine and monocyte/neutrophil-platelet conjugates, which might reflect differences in blood sampling technique or in flow conditions in this patient cohort with coronary artery disease. These differences might be considered when comparing data from different sample sites, but caution should be exercised if a different protocol is used or another patient group is studied.