Why the study?
Despite advances in antithrombotic pharmacotherapy, many patients remain at risk of thrombotic complications, but the assessment of endogenous fibrinolysis is not yet accepted into routine clinical practice.
This review summarizes various methods for assessing endogenous fibrinolysis and their potential future integration into clinical practice to identify patients at high risk for thrombotic complications.
The occurrence of thrombotic complications, which can result in excess mortality and morbidity, represent an imbalance between the pro-thrombotic and fibrinolytic equilibrium. The mainstay treatment of these complications involves the use of antithrombotic agents but despite advances in pharmacotherapy, there remains a significant proportion of patients who continue to remain at risk. Endogenous fibrinolysis is a physiological counter-measure against lasting thrombosis and may be measured using several techniques to identify higher risk patients who may benefit from more aggressive pharmacotherapy. However, the assessment of the fibrinolytic system is not yet accepted into routine clinical practice. In this review, we will revisit the different methods of assessing endogenous fibrinolysis (factorial assays, turbidimetric lysis assays, viscoelastic and the global thrombosis tests), including the strengths, limitations, correlation to clinical outcomes of each method and how we might integrate the assessment of endogenous fibrinolysis into clinical practice in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gue et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: