【摘要】 目的分析血液核酸检测(NAT)与酶联免疫法(EILSA)对血液病毒的筛查结果,提示血液NAT法对提高血液安全的意义。方法 2015年11月~2016年11月从本站无偿献血者中随机选取19 464名为研究对象,集中采集血液样本,首先采取EILSA法检测血样,筛查抗-HIV、抗-HCV与HBsAg,然后采取PCR荧光法对无偿献血者ELISA阴性标本进行HBV、HCV和HIV进行核酸检测,从结果判断不同检测方法在血液检测中的效率,进而分析提高血液安全的意义。结果在HBV检测中,NAT检测阳性率为16.0%,高于ELISA检测阳性率(11.0%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);在HIV检测中,NAT检测阳性率为1.9%,与ELISA检测阳性率(1.7%)的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);在HCV检测中,NAT检测阳性率为1.8%,高于ELISA检测阳性率(0.5%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论采取先行EILSA法、后经NAT法检测的筛查方案,可有效避免漏检或误检,灵敏度和准确度有效提升,进一步保证血液质量和输血安全,可在血液筛查中广泛应用。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To analyze the results of blood virus screening by both nucleic acid test(NAT) and ELISA to evaluate the significance of NAT in improving blood safety. Methods We randomly collected 19 464 blood samples from volunteers between 2015 and 2016. The blood samples were detected by ELISA for screening of anti-HIV,anti-HCV and HBsAg, followed by PCR fluorescence detection for nucleic acids of HBV, HCV and HIV in the samples which had showed negative reactions in ELISA. The comparative results were evaluated for the efficiency and significance in laboratory diagnoses and blood safety ensurance. Result The positive rate of HBV was 16.0% by NAT compared with11.0% by ELISA(P<0.05). HCV detected by NAT revealed a positivity of 1.8%, which is obviously higher than 0.5%by ELISA(P<0.05). The positive rate of HIV, however, was 1.9% by NAT whereas 1.7% by ELISA, no significant difference was noted between the two methods(P>0.05). Conclusion Pre-examination of blood samples with ELISA followed by NAT verification is recommended for blood screening which may help avoid missing or misdetection of samples in ELISA and help improve sensitivity and accuracy in the safety of blood transfusion.更多还原