Key result
Human and bovine thromboplastin methods, unlike rabbit thromboplastin, are sensitive to the inhibitor formed during dicumarol therapy, acting as indicators rather than true measures of hemostasis.
Why the study?
How do various prothrombin determination methods compare in their sensitivity and therapeutic levels for controlling dicumarol therapy?
How do various prothrombin determination methods compare in their sensitivity and therapeutic levels for controlling dicumarol therapy?
Human and bovine thromboplastin assays are sensitive to inhibitors formed during dicumarol therapy, unlike rabbit thromboplastin, though all such methods serve only as indicators of hemostasis.
May warrant preferring rabbit thromboplastin for dicumarol monitoring; leaves open optimal prothrombin assay standardization.
A comparison has been made between the following methods used to control dicumarol therapy: P&P (human thromboplastin), Simplastin A (rabbit thromboplastin), thrombotest (bovine thromboplastin), Quick's original method and Lehman's modification of this method (human and rabbit thromboplastin). It is shown that human and bovine but not rabbit thromboplastin is sensitive to the inhibitor formed during dicumarol therapy. In spite of this it is possible to use Biggs and Denson's ratio method (1) to compare the “prothrombin” determination methods. By means of linear regression analyses the therapeutic level of the different methods are compared. In the discussion it is stated that methods of this kind never give a true picture of the dicumarol effect on the hemostasis. They must be regarded as indicators.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
K Korsan-Bengtsen (1970) studied Dicumarol therapy. Prothrombin determination methods (P&P, Simplastin A, thrombotest, Quick's, Lehman's) was evaluated on Sensitivity to the inhibitor formed during dicumarol therapy. Human and bovine thromboplastin methods, unlike rabbit thromboplastin, are sensitive to the inhibitor formed during dicumarol therapy, acting as indicators rather than true measures of hemostasis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: