Key result
Coagulation markers improve mechanistic understanding but require prospective trials to validate thrombotic event prediction.
Why the study?
The choice and use of assays measuring coagulation peptides, enzymes, and complexes as predictors of thrombotic events and to monitor anticoagulant treatment need to be defined in prospective clinical trials.
Assay methods for hypercoagulability have improved understanding of coagulation mechanisms, but their clinical utility as predictors of thrombotic events requires validation in prospective trials.
Coagulation markers should not guide thrombotic risk assessment in practice; leaves open predictive utility pending prospective trials.
Information on hypercoagulability can be achieved through the measurement of peptides that are generated when zymogens are activated, of the active enzymes, or of the complexes that form in the circulation when enzymes are inactivated by their plasmatic inhibitors. These assay methods have dramatically improved our understanding of the mechanisms which regulate coagulation in health and disease. However, their choice and use as predictors of thrombotic events and to monitor anticoagulant treatment still need to be defined in prospective clinical trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mannucci et al. (2009) conducted a review in Hypercoagulable states. Measurement of coagulation markers has improved understanding of coagulation mechanisms, but their use as predictors of thrombotic events still needs to be defined in prospective clinical trials.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: