What question did this study set out to answer?

To compare the efficacy and safety of the Thrombotest method against Quick's one-stage prothrombin time estimation for monitoring anticoagulant therapy.

February 1, 1965Australasian Annals of Medicine

“Thrombotest” and Prothrombin Time: A Controlled Clinical Trial

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

Does the Thrombotest method improve clinical outcomes compared to Quick's one-stage prothrombin time in patients receiving anticoagulation?

Population

Patients attending the anticoagulant service of the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, including major groups…

Comparison

Anticoagulant monitoring using the "Thrombotest"… vs Anticoagulant monitoring using Quick's one-stage…

Design

RCT, Preconstructed random allocation tables

Authors

MRM. C. ROZENBERGThe University of Sydney HKH. KronenbergRoyal Prince Alfred Hospital BFB. G. FirkinThe University of Sydney

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Prothrombin time monitoring reduces recurrences versus Thrombotest in ischemic heart disease; challenges Thrombotest superiority for anticoagulant monitoring.

Key Points

To compare the efficacy and safety of the Thrombotest method against Quick's one-stage prothrombin time estimation for monitoring anticoagulant therapy.
Conducted a randomized controlled clinical trial using preconstructed allocation tables to assign patients to Thrombotest or Quick's prothrombin time monitoring.
Included major cohorts with ischemic heart disease alongside smaller groups with cerebrovascular insufficiency, rheumatic heart disease, and venous thrombosis.
Assayed specific depressed coagulation factors, including factor IX (Christmas factor), and evaluated therapeutic ranges alongside clinical event rates.
In ischemic heart disease, the recurrence rate was significantly lower with prothrombin time monitoring compared to Thrombotest (statistically significant difference favoring prothrombin time), with death rates showing a similar nonsignificant trend.
Major hemorrhage occurred less frequently in the Thrombotest group, but combined total complications (recurrences plus major hemorrhages) favored Quick's prothrombin time.
Thrombotest demonstrated sensitivity to factor IX depression below 10% activity, though marked Christmas factor depression did not correlate with hemorrhage.

Structured PICO

Does the Thrombotest method improve clinical outcomes compared to Quick's one-stage prothrombin time in patients receiving anticoagulation?

Population

Patients attending the anticoagulant service of the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, including major groups with ischemic heart disease and minor groups with cerebrovascular insufficiency, rheumatic heart disease, and venous thrombosis.

Intervention

Anticoagulant monitoring using the "Thrombotest" method (therapeutic range of 10% to 20% activity).

Comparator

Anticoagulant monitoring using Quick's one-stage prothrombin time estimation.

Outcome

Recurrences of arterial thrombosis/ischemic events.hard clinical

The Thrombotest method was found to be less satisfactory than Quick's one-stage prothrombin time for preventing arterial thrombosis recurrences in patients with ischemic heart disease.

Cite This Study

ROZENBERG et al. (1965) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7005f635aa2c282ce1539f https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.1965.14.1.3

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

Prothrombin time monitoring reduces recurrences versus Thrombotest in ischemic heart disease; challenges Thrombotest superiority for anticoagulant monitoring.

“Thrombotest” and Prothrombin Time: A Controlled Clinical Trial

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

“Thrombotest” and Prothrombin Time: A Controlled Clinical Trial

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider